The court reaffirmed the right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., justifying maintenance awarded despite claims of abandonment due to evidence of cruelty.

O R D E R

This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in M.C.No.171 of 2016 dated 06.04.2017.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1^st respondent and father of the 2^nd respondent. The respondents filed the maintenance case against the petitioner before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram as M.C.No.171 of 2016 claiming maintenance. The Family Court granted a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to the 1^st respondent and Rs.4,000/- to the 2^nd respondent. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. Since the Advocate, who preferred this revision petition, has been elevated as the Judge, notice was issued to the revision petitioner. But there is no appearance. Hence, I have perused the records.

4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The petitioner has taken a contention that the 1^st respondent left his company without any justified reason and she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C. However, it has come out in evidence that the petitioner had treated the 1^st respondent with cruelty. The Family Court, on appreciation of evidence, found that the 1^st respondent was justified in living separately. I see no reason to take a different view in this regard. Admittedly, the petitioner is conducting a printing press. However, he did not produce any document to show his income. Even though the petitioner has taken a contention that the 1^st respondent is employed, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. The evidence on record only establishes that the 1^st respondent had a temporary job till 2013.

5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the requirement of the respondents and the means of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be absolutely reasonable. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.