Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1069 (KER)

RAJESH K. v. K. K. RASITHA, GOKUL RAJ, AMAL RAJ

2012-12-07

S.SIRI JAGAN

body2012
ORDER The petitioner is the husband in a matrimonial cause. The respondents are the wife and children. The respondents filed M.C.No.396/2011 before the Family Court, Thalassery. The Family Court, by the impugned order, directed the petitioner herein to pay 1,500/- each per month towards maintenance of the petitioners from the date of the petition. It was also directed that interim maintenance already paid will be deducted from the award of maintenance. The 1st respondent was authorised to receive maintenance amount for and on behalf of minor respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner is challenging the said order. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the Family Court did not consider the matter in the correct perspective. It is submitted that the 1st respondent herein left the company of the petitioner without any valid reason and, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance from the revision petitioner. There is no reliable material other than the interested testimony of the 1st respondent to prove cruelty on the part of the petitioner against the 1st respondent. As such, the 1st respondent is residing separately without any reason and consequently she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the amount of maintenance awarded is disproportionate to the income of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. On a reading of the judgment of the Family Court, I find that the Family Court has weighed the evidence of the 1st respondent as against the evidence of the petitioner herein. The Family Court chose to believe the 1st respondent. The Family Court has given elaborate reasons to believe the 1st respondent. The Family Court found that the evidence given by the 1st respondent regarding the cruelty by the petitioner is reliable and acceptable. I do not find any perversity whatsoever in the appreciation of evidence by the Family Court. 5. As regards the quantum, the Family Court has found that the petitioner himself admitted monthly income of `10,000/-. The Family Court has awarded only ` 1500/- each to the respondents. There is no disproportionality in awarding such maintenance compared to the admitted income of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Family Court and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.