Sasidharan Pillai v. Suseela Kunjamma

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/12TH MAGHA 1933** ## **RP(FC).No. 33 of 2012** **---------------------CMP.NO.187/2010 IN MC.144/1992 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA** **REVISION PETITIONER(S): ----------------------** **SASIDHARAN PILLAI, KALEECKAL VEEDU, PUNTHALA, VENMONY, CHENGANNUR.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SRI.LEO GEORGE** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1 SUSEELA KUNJAMMA, CHANAYIL PUTHEN VEETTIL, KUDASSANADU, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.** **THIS REVISIONPETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **LSN** ## **P.BHAVADASAN, J.** ---------------------------------------------------RP(FC) No.33 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of February 2012 ## Order The order dated 21.10.2011 on CMP No.187/10 in MC No.144/92 whereby the maintenance awarded to the petitioner before the court below was enhanced to Rs.1,500/- is under challenge. 2. The petitioner is married to the respondent. The petitioner before the court below had filed MC No.144/92 before the Family Court, Alappuzha for maintenance. At that time, she had to look after her son also. It appears, by order dated 23.3.1997, maintenance @ Rs.100/- for each of the petitioners was granted against which the respondent filed Crl.RP No.42/94 in which the maintenance was reduced to Rs.75/- per month for each. The Criminal M.C. filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed. Later, the petitioner filed CMP No.10172/98 for enhancing the maintenance and it was RP(FC) 33/12 2 allowed @ Rs.100/- per mensum for each. Subsequently, she sought for further enhancement and it was enhanced to Rs.250/- per mensum for each. By that time, the petitioner's son attained majority and so, he became ineligible to get maintenance. It was pointed out by the petitioner that the amount she receives is too inadequate and insufficient to meet her needs, considering the cost of living and other factors. It was also pointed out that the respondent is an auto rickshaw driver and he is getting about Rs.10,000/- per month. It is also alleged that the respondent has got landed properties which would fetch him an income of about Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, she claimed Rs.3,000/- as maintenance. 3. The petition was resisted by the respondent. He pointed out that the allegation that he is getting an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as income from the auto rickshaw was denied. He also denied of having landed properties, which would fetch him an income of Rs.5,000/per month. He contended that he has no auto rickshaw RP(FC) 33/12 3 and also that he is undergoing treatment for spinal injury and is unable to do any heavy work. According to him, he has no permanent job or work. 4. Evidence was adduced before the court below, which consists of the testimony of PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 and A2 from the side of the complainant. The respondent had RW1 examined and Exts.B1 and B2 examined. 5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the lower court came to the conclusion that after taking into consideration, the various aspects, it was thought fit and proper to enhance the amount of compensation to Rs.1,500/-. An order was passed accordingly. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the enhancement now ordered of the maintenance, is too high and is not proportionate to the income derived by the petitioner before this court. It is pointed out that the petitioner has, in fact, no means of any income and is a sick person, saddled with the obligation to 4 RP(FC) 33/12 look after his aged mother also. The petitioner before the court below earns some income and that she is able to maintain herself. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner has no independent means of income and has no landed property from which he could get any income Therefore, he prayed that the order impugned may be interfered with. 7. The amount of Rs.1,500/- is ordered to be paid as maintenance w.e.f. 3.10.2011. The court below has taken note of the present cost of living and various other factors to come to a conclusion that an amount of Rs.1,500/- is just and proper. Even though the revision petitioner contended that the petitioner before the court below has independent means of income, he was unable to substantiate his contention by producing necessary evidence in that regard. The court below has found that Exts.P1 and P2 produced by the respondent before the court below are insufficient to come to the conclusion that RP(FC) 33/12 5 he is disabled from doing any work. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision in _**Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai**_ (2008) 2 SCC 316) and contended that the test to be applied is that whether the wife is unable to maintain herself. According to the learned counsel, she has earnings of her own and she need not depend upon the husband for maintenance. 9. Except for the interested testimony of DW1, there is absolutely no evidence to show that what the learned counsel says is true. The claim of the revision petitioner that he is disabled from doing any work, cannot be readily be accepted. 10. On going through the order of the court below, it is found that the conclusion is arrived at on an appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case. The findings are not shown to be either perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record. Moreover, the amount now ordered i.e., Rs.1,500/- is only just and reasonable, considering the various aspects like the RP(FC) 33/12 6 present cost of living, the price of commodities etc. The result is that no grounds are made out warranting interference with the order of the court below. The revision petition is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. ## **P.Bhavadasan, Judge** sta RP(FC) 33/12 7