Kerala High CourtBhaskaran vs Pushpa on 28 March, 2005IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
                                  &
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

       FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/30TH POUSHA, 1938

                   Mat.Appeal.No. 153 of 2005 ( )
                   -------------------------------


AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 122/2003 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED
28-03-2005

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
--------------------

            BHASKARAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
            S/O. KELAPPAKURUP, THEKKEDATHKANDY,
            KAYANNA AMSOM, DESOM, PERAMBRA,
            KOYILANDY TALUK, PERAMBRA.


            BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
---------------------

          1. PUSHPA, AGED 39 YEARS,
            D/O. CHATHUKUTTY KURUP, PTUHIYOTTIL,
            KOKKALLUR AMSOM, KOONANCHERY DESOM,
            KOYILANDY TALUK.

          2. JINISHA, 17 YEARS, D/O. PUSHPA,
            MINOR REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.


            R1 & R2  BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P

         THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL    HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD   ON
20-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                        A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
                                    &
                      K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J
                     * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                   Mat.Appeal No.153 of 2005
                  ----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 20th day of January 2017



                           J U D G M E N TRamakrishnan, J

     This appeal is filed by the appellant who is the respondent

before the court below against the order of past maintenance

passed in O.P.No.122/2003 of the Family Court, Kozhikode.2.   The original petition was filed by the wife along with

the child who are the petitioners in the original petition seeking

past maintenance. It is alleged in the original petition that the

marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent was

solemnised on 30/04/1982 and they lived together as husband

and wife. They purchased 10 cents of property near their house

and started residing there. In the wedlock, the 2nd petitioner was

born. She is a student in CKG Memorial College. After some time,

there was some strain in the relationship, on account of which

they have started living separately. It is also alleged that theMat.Appeal No.153/20052respondent is having illicit relation with a lady which was

interfered by others. In spite of that, the respondent continued

the relationship and left the house deserting the petitioners from

11/12/2000.       Thereafter the respondent did not pay any

maintenance to the petitioners.        Since the respondent had

married again during the subsistence of his marriage with the 1st

petitioner, she had preferred a complaint underSection 494I.P.C.

Since the petitioners have no source of income, they had claimed

for a maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- each per month and claimed a

total amount of Rs.72,000/- at that rate for a period of 24 months.3.    Respondent entered appearance and admitted the

marriage and paternity of the child. It is also admitted that the

property was purchased and the building was constructed. He

also admitted the birth of the child in the marriage. He denied

the allegation of illicit relationship with another lady.   He also

denied the allegation that there was any ill-treatment. According

to the respondent, the 1st petitioner left the company of the

respondent and she is not entitled for any maintenance.

According to the respondent, he is working in the Postal

Department and is getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. TheMat.Appeal No.153/200531st petitioner is working in Kodassery Khadi Weaving Centre and

earning Rs.150/- per day. Therefore, she is not entitled for

maintenance. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.4.     The case was tried along with M.C.No.76/2003 which

was filed for future maintenance. The 1st petitioner was examined

as PW1      and the respondent was examined as RW1 and a

document was marked as Ext.A1 on the side of the petitioner.

After considering the evidence on record, the court below granted

maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the 1st respondent and

Rs.1,000/- to the 2nd respondent and granted              a decree

Rs.60,000/- as past maintenance for the period from 11/12/2000

to 04/12/2002. The court below also granted future maintenance

at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,000/- to the

2nd petitioner. Dissatisfied with the same, present appeal has

been preferred.5.     Heard both sides.6.     Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

award of maintenance to the 1st petitioner is unsustainable as she

is employed and getting a reasonable income and the quantum of

maintenance awarded is also high.Mat.Appeal No.153/200547.    The learned counsel for the respondent supported

the order passed.8.    Marriage with the 1st petitioner and birth of the 2nd

petitioner is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that they are

separately living from 11/12/2000. Respondent has no case that

the petitioners were provided with any maintenance after they

had left the company of the respondent. Though there is a case

that the 1st petitioner is working and getting Rs.150/- per day, the

same was denied by the 1st petitioner when she was in the

witness box. There is no document to prove that fact. It is an

admitted fact that the respondent is working in the Postal

Department and getting Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, it was

brought out in evidence that the respondent is having property

and is getting income from that property as well.9.    Considering the status of the parties and also the

income of the respondent, the court below was perfectly justified

in fixing the quantum of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/-

and Rs.1,000/- to petitioners 1 and 2 respectively and rightly

allowed Rs.60,000/- as past maintenance. We do not find any

reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below.Mat.Appeal No.153/20055This Mat.Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Considering

the circumstances, parties shall bear the respective costs of the

appeal.(sd/-)

                                (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)


                                          (sd/-)

                                (K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

jsr