BINDHUMOL G. Vs. P.G.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforecaptioned revision petition filed under Sec.19(4) of the Family Court Act to impugne the final order dated 30.07.2019 rendered by the Family Court, Kottayam in M.C.No.241/2016 whereby the maintenance claim of the revision petitioner herein has been repelled by the said court. Heard Sri.K.Reghu Kottappuram, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/petitioner in M.C./wife and Sri.K.N.Govindankutty Menon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein/respondent in M.C./husband.

(2.) The revision petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent herein. The revision petitioner has filed the aforecaptioned maintenance case M.C.No.241/2016 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor seeking for directions from the said court that the respondent herein should pay maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. The Family Court has held that the revision petitioner herein is gainfully employed and that she is fully capable of taking care of her needs and necessities and therefore, she is not entitled for grant of maintenance under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) According to the revision petitioner, respondent herein is regularly employed as a watcher in the service of the Travancore Devaswom Board and that he is having a monthly income of Rs.30,000/- per month. The respondent herein contended that he is not employed and father that the revision petitioner is working as a nursery school teacher at a local NSS school and she is also engaged as a member of the Board of Directors of a co-operative bank and she is also attached to the 'AyaLkoottam' and 'Kudumbasree' projects and she is having an income of at least Rs.10,000/- per month from all such sources. Further that, she is having fixed deposits and she is also receiving sizable income as interests etc. The revision petitioner has pointed out that the case of the respondent herein that he was terminated from the service of said Devaswom Board is factually wrong and that he is still pension salary income from the Devaswom Board, which is a statutory board. The Family Court has noted that the revision petitioner has admitted that she has teachers training certificate and she is working in a local NSS School and has further held that she also receives income from Kudumbasree and Ayalkoottam etc. and also as a board member of Thalayolaparambu Service Co-operative bank etc. The revision petitioner has now produced Annexure-A1 in this revision petition, which appears to be a proceedings bearing ROC No. 16617/12/Vigilance/Mis-A dated 28.10.2014 issued by the Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board that the respondent herein has been compulsorily retired from the Devaswom Board and this would show that he is receiving pension consequent to his compulsory retirement from the service of the Devaswom Board.