N. SREEDHARAN Vs. VALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the respondent in O.P.1189/2005 of the family court, Alappuzha. He is the husband of the respondent herein. The aforesaid O.P was filed seeking a decree for realisation of past and future maintenance from the appellant herein. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The appellant filed a counter-statement admitting the marital relationship and the parentage of the children. According to him, earlier he was employed as a toddy shop worker at Palakkad from 1993 onwards and due to his bad health he was forced to retire from his employment. He is suffering from severe lumber disc disease and also he is a chronic heart patient. He is unable to do any work due to his ill health. He has denied the allegation that he failed to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent and children after 1993. Further, he denied the allegation that he is residing with another lady at Palakkad. He admitted that he retired from the service of the toddy shop but according to him, he had a short period of service and he has no retirement benefit as claimed in the petition. It is also contended that the respondent is a healthy lady and she is conducting the coir business at his residence and she is getting monthly income of more than Rs. 4,000/-. That apart, she owns 25 cents of landed property from which she is getting good income. His son is also healthy and he is engaged in coolie work from which he is earning money and the respondent is residing under his care and protection, according to the appellant. In short, according to the appellant, the respondent is not entitled to get any amount as arrears of maintenance allowance.

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings both parties adduced evidence which consists of oral testimony of PW1 and RW1 and Exts C1, C1(a) and B1. After considering the aforesaid evidence on record, the family court granted a decree allowing the respondent to realise an amount of Rs. 18,000/- as arrears of maintenance allowance with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition. The respondent is further allowed to recover and realise Rs. 500/- per month as future maintenance with effect from the date of petition till the date of decree. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid order is assailed in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.