HAREENDRAN K.P. Vs. SHIJILA K.V.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the respondent in OP. No. 1024/2011 before the Family Court, Kannur. The OP was filed for the past maintenance from 17/11/2008 to 17/11/2011 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner. It is the case of the appellant that he got married with the first respondent on 03/06/2006 and the 2nd respondent was born out of their wedlock and they lived as husband and wife till 12/09/2008. The appellant cruelly behaved towards her and abandoned them from 12/09/2008 and so far he has not given anything towards maintenance. The appellant denied the entire allegations and averments in the petition. It is also stated that the first respondent is living separately without any reason and as per her whims and fancy, and the appellant is not liable to maintain the respondents. It is also stated that the first respondent has got her own income and she is getting Rs. 250/- per day.

(2.) The respondents had filed MC. No. 272/2011 for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the Family Court, Thalassery passed an order stating that the first respondent is residing separately without any justifiable reason. It was also found that she has got her own income. So the petition filed for getting maintenance was disallowed by the Family Court and there was a direction to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the 2nd respondent alone. Against the said order, RP (FC) No. 138/2012 was filed by the respondents before this Court, which confirmed the order disallowing the claim of the first respondent on the ground that she is residing separately without any sufficient reason and enhanced the maintenance amount of the 2nd respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- from the date of order. The respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. Exts. B1 to B8 were marked on the side of the appellant. On 22/10/2013, the Family Court, Thalassery passed decree and judgment directing the appellant to give past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- to the first respondent and Rs. 1,500/- to the 2nd respondent from 17/11/2008 to 31/03/2011 and the total amount would come to Rs. 70,000/- towards the first respondent and Rs. 42,000/- towards the 2nd respondent respectively. Highly aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) According to the appellant, the Family Court ought to have found that the claim of the first respondent was disallowed in MC. No. 272/2011 with a finding that the first respondent is residing separately without any justifiable reason. This Court also confirmed the order passed in MC. No. 272/2011. So the first respondent, who is residing separately without any reason is not entitled for past maintenance as well as future maintenance. The Family Court ought to have found that the right for maintenance is already decided in MC. No. 272/2011 and on revision, this Court has also confirmed the said order. The lower court ought to have found that the grounds of cruelty consists of assault, threatening, extracting gold, manhandling for abortion, demand for dowry etc. raised by the respondent in MC. No. 272/2011 and in Ext. B1 order in the MC. This Court dismissed all the allegations and found that the first respondent is residing separately without any reason. The judgment in RP (FC) No. 130/2012 was not produced before the Family Court on 05/10/2013. On these grounds as urged above, the appellant prays for setting aside the order in OP No. 1024/2011.