Santhosh Kumar K., S/O.Kuttan Pillai v. Laathakumari S., W/O.Santhosh Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/22ND PHALGUNA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2037 of 2013 () -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 40/2013 OF SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 25-06-2013 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 78/2010 OF JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR DATED 08-02-2012 REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR K., S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI KOWSTHUBHAM, PARAKODE P.O., ADOOR.

BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & STATE :

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. LAATHAKUMARI S., AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR KEEZHUTTU VEEDU, PIDAVOOR P.O., PATHANAPURAM KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 001.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GITHESH R.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: shg/

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of March, 2015

O R D E R

The revision petitioner was ordered to pay Rs.4,000/- each per month as maintenance to his wife, the first respondent, and their child. The order has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.40/2013. The legality of the order is challenged.

2.

The revision petitioner married the first respondent on 10.06.2007. A child was born to them on 19.5.2008. In the petition the first respondent alleged that the revision petitioner is a drunkard, he used to assault her under the influence of liquor and he even gave her and the child liquor in small quantity. On 4.6.2010 in the night he assaulted her and drove her out of the house. Thereafter, she has been residing with the child in her parents' house. She prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month.

3.

Both the learned Magistrate and the Sessions

-2Judge accepted the first respondent's evidence that the revision petitioner drove her out of the house and thereafter, he failed to maintain her and the child. I do not find any reason to take a different view. The finding is based on the evidence in the case.

4.

Admittedly, the child has only one kidney now. He requires treatment. The amount awarded by the learned Magistrate to the child is Rs.4,000/- per month. Having regard to the nature of the disease and the amount required for his treatment it cannot be said that the order to pay Rs.4,000/- per month is not reasonable.

5.

It is necessary for the first respondent to take the child to hospitals for treatment. Apart from maintaining herself she will have to spend money to take the child to hospitals. The amount awarded to her towards her maintenance also cannot be said to be unreasonable. 6.

The revision petitioner has a jewellery shop. He can afford to pay the maintenance awarded by the courts below. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the

-3orders passed by the courts below. There is no merit in the criminal revision petition.

In the result, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/