Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942 RPFC.No.153 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC NO.213/2014 DATED 11-03-2015 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: SHANAVAS, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O ABDUL HAKKIM, SHAMEER MANZIL, CHAVARKODU, NARAYIKULAM, VETTIYARA P.O, CHIRAYINKIZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 2 SUMAYYA BEEVI, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O DILSADINA BEEVI, S.S. MANZIL, PANAYOTTUKONAM, KOLLAMKAVU, PAZHAKUTTI PO, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADVS. RAM MOHAN.G. G.P.SHINOD GOVIND PADMANAABHAN AJIT G ANJARLEKAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No.153/2016 2
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2021
The revision on hand is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Nedumangadu on 11.03.2015 in M.C No.213/2014. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the M.C. His contention was that the court below has awarded Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance to the petitioner, which was disproportionate to his monthly income. According to him, he has established before the Family Court that he is suffering from some mental incapacity and therefore, is unable to do any job and earn income. According to him, the Family Court failed to appreciate Ext.R1 marked in evidence which shows that he is undergoing treatment for depression. According to him, in the context, interference and modification of the monthly maintenance stands ordered in favour of the petitioner, is called for.
2. For the sake of clarity, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent in accordance with their status in the M.C before the Family Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention RPFC.No.153/2016 3
of this Court to apprise that Ext.R1 is related to the year 2015. According to him, Ext.R1 evenif was relied on by the Family Court, it is inadequate to prove the contention that the respondent is suffering from some incapacity at the relevant time when M.C was filed and therefore, is disabled to earn more income by doing any work. Ext.R1 is only a prescription issued from Welcare Homoeo Clinic and it is not discerned therefrom that the anxiety and mental depression for which some treatment was availed in the year 2015, is still continuing. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is undergoing Siddha treatment for paralytic condition of her left upper limb and that is
evidenced from Ext.P2. The learned counsel canvassed that the impugned order is only to be maintained.
4. The factum of marriage was admitted by the respondent.
It is established that the petitioner is unemployed and devoid of earning. Admittedly the respondent is a tailor by profession. The monthly income as pleaded by the petitioner, though denied by him, he has not stated anything about his actual income. Therefore, there is every reason to hold that the respondent is obtaining sufficient
income. The Family Court has found accordingly and fixed the monthly maintenance payable as Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner who is established as undergoing Siddha treatment for her paralytic stage of RPFC.No.153/2016 4 left upper limb. The sum stands ordered by the court as monthly maintenance cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable and therefore, the impugned order is only to be maintained. Revision fails and is dismissed. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE JJ