Abey George v. Elizabeth Abey

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` RPFC NO. 125 OF 2020 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 93/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, ``` ## **`PATHANAMTHITTA`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ABEY GEORGE, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, C/O. JESSY ROY, PENIEL HOUSE, KADAMBANADU NORTH MURI AND KADAMBANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PIN- 691552. BY ADVS. M.T.SURESH KUMAR MANJUSHA K(K/000191/2018) SREELAKSHMI SABU(K/000200/2020) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` ELIZABETH ABEY, W/O. ABEY GEORGE, KURUMPILETH HOUSE, KADAMBANAD NORTH MURI, KADAMBANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PIN-691552. BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR ``` ``` THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 R.P (FC) No.125 of 2020 ## **C.S DIAS,J.** ## **--------------------------R.P (FC) No.125 of 2020** **-----------------------------** Dated this the 19[th] day of December, 2023 ## **ORDER** The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C No.93/2017 of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondent - his wife - monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.20,000/- from the date of application. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondent was the petitioner before the Family Court. ## **Brief facts** 2. The respondent had filed the application under Sec.125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short,“Code”), against the revision petitioner, seeking a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.30,000/-. It was her case that, she was married to the revision petitioner on 11.7.1988. The revision petitioner is working as a 3 R.P (FC) No.125 of 2020 Senior Sales Supervisor in a company in Saudi Arabia and is earning a monthly salary equivalent to Rs.3,00,000/-. Despite having sufficient means, the revision petitioner has willfully refused to maintain the respondent, who does not have the means to maintain herself. Hence, the application. 3. The revision petitioner had filed a written objection denying the allegations in the application. He admitted his marriage with the respondent. He also contended that they have two children born in their wedlock. The older daughter is married and the younger son is residing with the respondent. The younger son has completed his BBA and has a possibility of securing a good employment. It is false to state that the revision petitioner is earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month. He lost his employment and has no source of income. The respondent has spent the revision petitioner's hard earned money for her opulent lifestyle. The respondent has already filed a petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate under the the Protection of Women from 4 R.P (FC) No.125 of 2020 Domestic Violence Act and a residential order has been passed against the revision petitioner. The application is merit-less and the same may be dismissed. 4. The respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 series were marked through her in evidence. The revision petitioner was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked through him on his side. 5. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application as observed above. 6. It is assailing the said order; the revision petition is filed. 7. Heard; Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order? 9. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the respondent. He does not have a case that the 5 R.P (FC) No.125 of 2020 respondent has any employment or source of income. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination is the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court in the impugned order. 10. When the revision petition came up for consideration on 4.12.2023, this Court directed both the parties to file their affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities before this Court, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr** [2020 (6) KHC 1]. 11. Pursuant to the above order, the parties have filed their affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities. On a perusal of the above affidavits, it is seen that the parties have not filed their affidavits as laid down in the above decision. Nonetheless, both parties have stuck to their respective stands in the original pleadings. 12. The respondent's case in the application was that the revision petitioner was working as a Senior Sales Supervisor in a private company in Saudi Arabia and was earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month. Although the revision 6 R.P (FC) No.125 of 2020 petitioner produced Ext.B2 employment certificate, the employer has stated the salary details of the revision petitioner. 13. It is pertinent to note, at the time of trial, the revision petitioner took up the defence that he had lost his employment. Even though the Family Court directed the revision petitioner to produce his passport, he refused to produce the same on the ground that it was entrusted to the travel agency to explore the possibility to secure an employment abroad. 14. In view of the revision petitioner's reluctance to reveal his salary details, his refusal to produce his passport and his admission that he was earning Rs.1,25,000/- per month, the Family Court has fixed the monthly maintenance allowance payable by the revision petitioner to the respondent @ Rs.20,000/-. 15. In the celebrated decision in **Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr** . [2020 (6) KHC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to 7 R.P (FC) No.125 of 2020 dependant wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy. 16. In **Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal & Ors.** [(1978) 4 SCC 70], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that the provision of maintenance is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children, who fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) and reinforced by Article 39. 17. In **Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors.** [(2015) 6 SCC 353], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 125 of the Code was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, and the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able bodied 8 R.P (FC) No.125 of 2020 and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. 18. On an appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the factors mentioned above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court warranting interference by this Court under Sec.19(4) of the Family Courts Act. If the revision petitioner has a case that he has lost his employment, subsequent to the passing of the order, it would be up to him to invoke the statutory remedies contemplated under the law. The revision petition is meritless and is only to be dismissed. 19. At the said point of time, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner prayed that the revision petitioner may be granted a breathing time to pay the arrears of maintenance due as per the impugned order. Since the revision petition has been pending before this Court from 2020, I find the above submission to be reasonable and justifiable. 9 R.P (FC) No.125 of 2020 Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. Nonetheless, the revision petitioner is permitted to pay the arrears of maintenance to the respondent, after deducting the amount already paid by him pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, in three equated monthly instalments falling due on 19.1.2024, 19.2.2024 and 19.3.2024. The Family Court shall defer coercive proceedings as against the revision petitioner to enable him to pay the arrears as observed above. If the revision petitioner fails to pay the amount as ordered above, the respondent would be at liberty to execute the order, in accordance with law. sks/19.12.2023 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**