IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY,THE28H DAY OF JANUARY20148TH MAGHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 6104 of 2013 (A) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN CRA1062013 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED0409-2013 PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.106/2013: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ N.S PRASANNAN AGED39YEARS SON OF SARASIJAKSHAN, NARIKUZHIYIL VEEDU, URUMBINI KOCHUKOICKAL POST, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 689 667. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS IN CRL.APPEAL NO.106/2013: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682 031.
2. REKHA.R DAUGHTER OF RAVEENDRAN, RATEESH BHAVAN ATTACHAKAL POST, PAYYANAMON PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 626. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2801-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 6104 of 2013 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1- TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIPS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY2013 APRIL2013 MAY2013AND OCTOBER, 2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE JJJ N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 6104 of 2013 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2014 ORDER
The petitioner is the husband. An order was passed by the learned Magistrate under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, directing the petitioner, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent, to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- to the 2nd respondent and Rs.2,000/- to her child.
2. The petitioner is admittedly an employee of the K.S.E.B. His total salary is nearly Rs.30,000/-. His salary for the month of May is shown as Rs.28,783/- and for the month of October is shown as Rs.31,288/-.
3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the courts below went wrong in directing payment of Crl.M.C. No.6104/2013 -2- monthly maintenance at the rates stated above. This submission is strongly resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that including Co-operative Society loan, the total deduction comes to more than Rs.15,000/-. The fact that he had taken loan for some other purpose, cannot be a reason to say that the net salary so worked out alone should be taken into consideration while determining the quantum of maintenance payable to his wife and child.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got aged father and mother to be maintained. This submission is also resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the 2nd respondent, being the wife, is entitled to have a normal standard of living and that the Crl.M.C. No.6104/2013 -3- amount now ordered at the rate of Rs.4,500/- is just and reasonable.
5. It is contended by the petitioner that the 1st respondent is having some private employment and she is thus earning. No such evidence was adduce before the courts below.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that no evidence was adduced by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate to prove that the petitioner was maintaining his father and mother or that the 2nd respondent was having any other source of income. In the absence of anything of that sort, in a petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot advance a new case. The view taken by the learned Magistrate directing monthly payment of Rs.4,500/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to the Crl.M.C. No.6104/2013 -4- child is not unreasonable and as such it was rightly confirmed by the appellate court. I find no reason to interfere with that order. In the result this Criminal M.C. is dismissed. Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj