ORDER

(Dated: 14th June, 2022)

The counter petitioner/husband in M.C.No.3 of 2014 on the files of the Family Court, Palakkad is the revision petitioner herein (the parties are referred to as they appeared in the court below). He is challenging the order directing him to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of petition.

2. The first petitioner is the wife and 2nd petitioner is the son of the respondent. The marriage between the spouses was solemnised on 02.06.2010 at Panchaliyamman Hall at Palakkad and they lived together as husband and wife and in the wedlock 2nd petitioner is born. The marital life was very cordial for six months, thereafter the respondent started to consume alcohol and used to quarrel with the 1st petitioner and beat her. When the harassment became unbearable, the 1st petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner came to her parental house and after mediation talks she came back to the matrimonial home. On 26.12.2012, the respondent again quarreled with the 1st petitioner and she was sent along with her parents, thereafter he neglected to maintain the petitioners. They are unable to maintain themselves. The respondent is working in Tamilnadu Agricultural Department and is getting Rs.16,000/- per month. Hence she claimed Rs.5,000/- and Rs.7,500/- as maintenance respectively.

3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting the marriage with the 1st petitioner and the paternity of the 2nd petitioner. According to him the marital life was very cordial, but he denied that after six months of marriage he started to beat the 1st petitioner. He also denied that, after mediation twice the 1st petitioner came back to the parental home and on 26.12.2012, he sent out the 1st petitioner with her parents. According to the respondent, the 1st petitioner does not like to live with his parents and she compelled him to leave them and start living with the parents of the 1st petitioner, which he declined. Therefore, she left the company without any valid reason. He denied the fact that he is getting Rs.16,000/- per month. He admits that he is a casual labourer in Tamilnadu Agricultural Department and getting only Rs.4,000/- per month.

4. The 1st petitioner was examined as PW1 and the respondent got himself examined as RW1. On the side of the respondents D1 to D3 were marked. The Family Court on an appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence allowed the petition and directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed by the respondent/husband.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding entered into by the Family Court is on an erroneous appreciation of facts and the Family Court ought not have awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively to the petitioners. Moreover, the fact that the 1st petitioner is living separately without any sufficient reason as stated in the counter affidavit was not properly considered by the Family Court. He mainly challenges the maintenance awarded to the 1st petitioner. Hence he prays that the order of the Family Court is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Ext.D1 is a salary certificate dated 27.07.2015 issued by the Department of Vegetable Crops, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, in respect of the respondent. The said document shows that he earns Rs.200/- per day and works for 5 days and thus the monthly amount he receives is Rs.4,000/-. Though the genuineness of Ext.D1 was challenged by the petitioner, the family court accepted the same. As per Ext.D1, the monthly salary is only Rs.4,000/- per month. There is no other evidence before the court below to prove that the respondent is earning Rs.16,000/- per month. Having accepted Ext.D1 and the amount of