THOMAS A.P. Vs. ANU THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above revision petition filed under Sec.19(4) of the Family Courts Act is directed to impugn the final order dated 30.7.2018 rendered by the Family Court, Pala, in M.C.No.16/2015 filed by the respondents herein whereby they have prayed to grant maintenance to them by the revision petitioner herein (respondent therein) in terms of Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard Sri.V.B.Premachandran learned counsel for the revision petitioner (husband) and Smt.Sandhya R.Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein.

(3.) The parties have adduced evidence in this case before the Family Court. The Family Court, after due appreciation of evidence and after affording opportunity to both sides has found that the respondents herein were forced to live away from the revision petitioner for justifiable reasons and further that the 1st respondent herein is not having any source of livelihood and any income and both the respondents are eligible and entitled for maintenance under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. The main contention taken by the petitioner is that he is not having any job or other source of income. It is also pleaded that the 1st respondent herein (wife) is living in adultery and she has some affairs with one Sibi and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The petitioner has even gone to the extent of alleging that the minor son (2nd respondent herein) is not born in his relationship with the 1st respondent, etc. The Family Court held that the petitioner has not in any manner adduced evidence establishing such allegations and thus overruled the abovesaid contention of the petitioner. Further the Family Court noted that the case of the 1st respondent herein is that she was forced to live separately from the revision petitioner herein due to cruelty on his part and from his mother. The Family Court has held, after considering the evidence, that the wife has been able to show that she has justifiable reasons to live apart from the petitioner herein. As regards the income of the revision petitioner, the Family Court noted that admittedly he is an agriculturist and he has stated in evidence that he has 1.70 acres of land in which rubber tapping is done and that daily about 20 rubber sheets are obtained and that value of a rubber sheet comes to Rs.200/- per kilogram and each rubber sheet weighs about 750 grams and accordingly, the Family Court has held that the contention of the petitioner that he is not earning income is bereft of any merit. Taking into the account the fact that the revision petitioner is an able bodied man and being the husband of the 1st respondent herein and father of the 2nd respondent-minor son, the Family Court held that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondents herein. It is on that basis the Family Court held that maintenance should be paid by the petitioner @ Rs.5,000/- to the 1st respondent and @ Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent herein with effect from February, 2015 (date of filing of M.C.No.16/2015). After hearing both sides, this Court is not in a position to find fault with the abovesaid considered view taken by the Family Court, after due appreciation of the evidence on record. The Apex Court has recently held in the judgment dated 16.09.2019 in Crl. Appeal No.1399/2019 (arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.7203/2019) that unless there are extraordinary good reasons, it may not be right and proper for the High Courts to interfere with maintenance matters especially arising under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. proceedings. After hearing both sides, it is seen that no effective grounds are made by the petitioner so as to interdict with the impugned order.