Murali.A.M. v. Varuna.N.S. & Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/22ND JYAISHTA, 1937 RPFC.No. 24 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.P.634/09 IN MC 363/2008 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR DATED 08-11-2010.
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
------------------------------- MURALI A.M., S/O.MADHAVAN A.M., ATHIKKAVIL HOUSE, PANANKULAM P.O., KARUVANNUR, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
-------------------------
1. VARUNA N.S., D/O.SEKHARAN, NALUMAKKAL HOUSE, THUMBOOR P.O., THUMBOOR (VIA), VELLANKALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN-680662.
2. ARATHI (MINOR), REP.BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT VARUNA N.S., NALUMAKKAL HOUSE, THUMBOOR P.O., THUMBOOR (VIA), VELLANKALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN 680662.
3. ATHIRA (MINOR), REP.BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT VARUNA N.S., NALUMAKKAL HOUSE, THUMBOOR P.O., THUMBOOR (VIA), VELLANKALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN- 680662.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SUNIL KUMAR (IDUKKI) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K. HARILAL, J.
------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of June, 2015
ORDER
The petitioner is the respondent in M.P.No.634 of 2009 in M.C.No.363 of 2008 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur. The above M.C. was filed by the respondents herein, who are his wife and children, claiming maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. According to the first respondent, the petitioner has neglected to maintain them and refused to pay maintenance allowance to them. She is unable to maintain herself and the respondents 2 and 3; whereas the petitioner is a military pensioner getting Rs.6,000/- as monthly pension. In addition to that, he is getting Rs.4,000/- per month from security work and
-: 2 :- Rs.15,000/- as brokerage. Besides, he is getting Rs.3,000/- per month from the landed properties.
2. The revision petitioner entered appearance and contended that he is working as Security in the K.S.F.E. on daily wages and getting a monthly income of `4,800/-. His military pension is only `2,500/- per month.
3. Though the revision petitioner contended that the 1st respondent is working as a Teacher, there is no material presently available to support that contention. On the above premises, the court below directed the revision petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of `1,000/- each per month to the respondents 1 to 3. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.
4. Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the revision petitioner himself admitted that he is getting `7,300/- per month. Even if his admitted amount is taken into consideration, at its face value, I find that the direction to pay interim maintenance at
-: 3 :- the rate of `1,000/- each per month to the respondents 1 to 3 is reasonable, just and proper. No interference is called for under the revisional jurisdiction.
This revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge