Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3687
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
ANEEM MUHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
JUBAIRIYA – Respondent
RPFC 514/2007
['SRI C R SIVAKUMAR', '', 'SMT G VIDYA', 'SRI AJAYA KUMAR G']
A maintenance order under Section 125 must reflect the respondent's needs and the petitioner's earning capacity, ensuring support for a spouse in distress.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 - The court reaffirmed the necessity of providing maintenance to a spouse under Section 125, emphasizing the reasonable assessment of the respondent's needs against the petitioner's income capacity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested a maintenance order of Rs.2,000/month granted to the respondent, who claimed neglect during their marriage and inability to maintain herself and her child.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the petitioner, an able-bodied driver, could afford the maintenance despite his claims of lower income, justified by prevailing wage standards.
Issues: Whether the maintenance amount awarded under Section 125 is reasonable given the petitioner's financial capabilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that maintenance should be commensurate with a person's ability to pay and the needs of the spouse but emphasized the importance of not undermining the petitioner’s actual income potential.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed.
O R D E R
Assailing an order to pay @ Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to the first respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M.C.No.6/2006 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam, this revision petition is preferred.
2. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the order impugned.
3. Pleading inability to maintain herself, the first respondent preferred the petition seeking an order for maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- stating that the revision petitioner who married the first respondent on 8/5/2005 was neglecting to maintain the first respondent and that the revision petitioner is an able bodied man owning a tempovan in which he was working as driver and had been earning a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-.
4. The revision petitioner remained exparte.
The first respondent filed an affidavit in support of the pleadings. The trial court believed the exparte evidence adduced by the first respondent.
Consequently, the petition was allowed.
5. The marital relationship is admitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the desertion was at a time when the first respondent was carrying and later she delivered a girl child. No maintenance is admittedly provided to the first respondent or to the daughter.
First respondent was justified in filing the petition. The revision petitioner's plea is that he is only a paid driver and according to him he is getting only a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. There is no case that the revision petitioner is any way ailing.
6. Having due regard to the wages of the drivers, I am unable to believe the version of the learned counsel that the monthly income of the revision petitioner is only Rs.5,000/-. Even if the revision petitioner has no vehicle of his own, having due regard to the prevailing wages and labour charges, I find that an able bodied driver can earn at least Rs.400/- per day. The amount of maintenance now awarded to the first respondent is only @ Rs.67/- per day. Having due regard to the value of the essential commodities and rate of inflation, I find that the amount awarded is not at all exorbitant. It would hardly suffice to meet the requirement. Neither it is beyond the ability of the revision petitioner. I find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with costs which I fix at Rs.2,500/- (two thousand five hundred only)
