Sudha R.Pai v. Somanatha Pai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/26TH KARTHIKA, 1937 RPFC.No. 105 of 2012 () ------------------------ ORDER IN MC 360/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------- SUDHA R.PAI D/O.RAJENDRA PAI, SOORAJ NIVAS, CC 9/986 MANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI - 2.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT(S)/ST RESPONDENT:
--------------------------------
1. SOMANATHA PAI S/O.NARAYANA PAI, CHIRAKKULAM HOUSE, PARAVOOTHARA MURI NORTH PARUR P.O. - 683 513.
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.V.RAHUL R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SCL.
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2015
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the petitioner in M.C.No.360 of 2007 on the files of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The revision petitioner filed the said M.C. under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The court below dismissed the said M.C. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been filed.
2.
Heard both sides.
3.
The revision petitioner would contend that the revision petitioner is not having any job or source of income for her livelihood. The revision petitioner further contended that the first respondent is conducting a Hardware Shop, earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
4.
Before the court below, PW1 was examined for the revision petitioner. RW1 to RW3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked for the first respondent herein. Exts.X1 to X3 were also marked.
5.
It is not disputed that the revision petitioner is the
-2wife of the first respondent. It is also not disputed that their marriage was on 11.4.1996. However, the marriage subsisted only till 13.4.1996. After nearly ten years, she filed M.C.No.360 of 2007 before the court below, praying for maintenance. Eventhough the revision petitioner contended that she is not having any job or source of livelihood, the evidence on record including the evidence of RW1 to RW3 coupled with Exts.X1 to X3 would show that she is getting an amount of Rs.2,700/- per month as salary from her employment. RW3 is the employer of the revision petitioner. Even though the revision petitioner contended that the first respondent is getting Rs.20,000/- per month from his Hardware Shop, the evidence on record would show that he is only a helper in a Hardware Shop, getting only a very small amount as salary.
It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner re-married on 24.6.2012.
-3employed. The court below, after taking into consideration of the entire aspects of the case, found that the revision petitioner is capable of maintaining herself. In the said circumstances, the court below dismissed the claim for maintenance.
No circumstance has been brought to my notice to indicate that the finding by the court below suffers from any infirmity, warranting interference by this Court. In the result, this RP(FC) stands dismissed.
Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE Scl/17.11.2015 True Copy PA to Judge