Udayakumar v. Preethy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/25TH KARTHIKA, 1937 RPFC.No. 285 of 2015 () ------------------------ ORDER IN MC 6/2012 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

-------------------------------- UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.SIVARAMAN, KIZHAKKUPURAM HOUSE THAIKKATTUSSERY P.O., EDAKKUNNI VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

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

1. PREETHY D/O.PEETHAMBARAN, KOOTTUMAKKAL HOUSE VELLANGALLUR P.O., VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680662.

2. NEERAJ AGED 51⁄2 YEARS, S/O.UDAYAKUMAR, KIZHAKKUPURAM HOUSE THAIKKATTUSSERY P.O., EDAKKUNNI VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. (REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT).

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: scl.

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2015.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.6 of 2012 on the files of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. The revision petitioner was directed to pay 3,000/- to the first ₹ respondent and 1,500/- to the second respondent towards ₹ their monthly maintenance.

2.

Heard both sides.

3.

The status of the first respondent as the wife and the second respondent as the minor son of the revision petitioner is not disputed.

4.

The first respondent would contend that the revision petitioner treated her with cruelty and refused to maintain her from 12.08.2009 onwards. The revision petitioner is a carpenter by profession, earning 15,000/- per month. ₹ 5.

The revision petitioner would contend that the first respondent had left the company of the revision petitioner

-2without any sufficient cause. The revision petitioner is having 50% disability and hence, he is not in a position to earn income even for meeting his day-to-day expenses. 6.

Before the court below, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ext.A1 was marked for the respondents herein. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked for the revision petitioner.

7.

Ext.B5 certificate was produced by RW1 to show that he is having 50% disability. RW1 is a carpenter by profession. Ext.B5 was issued by a Medical Board. However, there is nothing in Ext.B5 to show that the revision petitioner is not having the capacity to do any work. There is also no evidence before the court to show that the capacity of the revision petitioner to do the work had been reduced to an extent of 50%. Since the revision petitioner is a carpenter by profession, the court below observed that the revision petitioner is getting attractive wages. After considering the evidence in detail, the court below found that the revision

-3petitioner is capable of maintaining the respondents. The court below after evaluating the evidence, rightly found that the first respondent was compelled to leave the company of the revision petitioner due to the cruelty by the revision petitioner.

8.

The court below, after taking into consideration of the probable income of the revision petitioner, the needs of the respondents and the status of the parties, directed the revision petitioner to pay the maintenance as stated above. No circumstance has been brought to my notice to indicate that the above 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/16.11.2015 True Copy PA to Judge