JOSEPH Vs. SHYCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in MC No.117/2014 of the files of the Family Court, Thrissur, the respondent in MC has preferred this revision.

(2.) The revision petitioner married the respondent herein. A child was born in the matrimonial relationship. Subsequently, alleging matrimonial cruelty and adultery, proceedings were initiated for divorce. Divorce was granted in OP No.591/2007 by the Family Court, Thrissur under section 10(1) (I) and 10 (x) of the Indian Divorce Act. The offences were challenged in Appeal Nos. 502 and 487/2009 which were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, confirming the decree of divorce. Thereafter, the wife claimed maintenance in MC No.117/2014, at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-. It was contended that, the revision petitioner and the respondent were living separately from 30/1/2004 and the son was looked after by the respondent herein. The revision petitioner herein was employed in Air Force and was drawing Rs. 45,000/- per month. Hence, she claimed maintenance.

(3.) The revision petitioner appeared in MC and filed a detailed objection denying the various allegations. It was alleged that, while they were living together as husband and wife, the respondent had an illegal relationship with the friend of the revision petitioner. O.P.No.591/2007 was filed seeking divorce on the ground of adultery. This was found by the Family Court and the divorce was granted on the ground of adultery. This was confirmed in appeal and both the Mat. Appeals were dismissed. However, it was stated that after the dismissal of both Mat. Appeals, an opinion developed among parties that the decree of divorce on the ground of adultery may prejudicialy affect the future of the minor child. Accordingly, the Division Bench was moved and divorce on the ground of adultery was removed from the order of divorce. It was stated that, the respondent herein had agreed not to make any claim for maintenance. However, in violation of the above undertakings, she has filed the application. It was contended that, the respondent was running a flour mill and also a beauty parlour. She was earning considerable income from it. It was also stated that, the income of the petitioner herein was only Rs. 40,000/-. He had to maintain his age old parents and the sister who was mentally challenged.