IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 233 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.631/2005 of Family Court, Malappuram .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- SADANANDAN.K., S/O.LATE APPUKUTTAN, CHALOD AGENCIES, CHALOD, EDAYANNUR P.O, KOODALI VIA. KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA SMT.A.LOWSY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- MEPPARAMBAN SREEJA, D/O.VELU, POYILIYIL HOUSE, AIKKARAPPADI P.O., PALLIKKAL AMSOM DESOM, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * R.P.F.C.No.233 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The revision petitioner assails the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,300/- per mensum to his divorced wife. 2. Marriage and divorce are admitted. Divorce was granted on the ground of adultery. There is a challenge pending against the said decree for divorce, it is contended. The court below found that the wife is unable to maintain herself and the husband has sufficient means to maintain her. Even though it was urged that contumacious adulterous conduct during the matrimony had led the Family Court to pass a decree for divorce and that consequently the wife is not entitled for maintenance, it is too late in the day for the revision petitioner to advance that this contention. This court in Valsarajan v. Saraswathy [2003 (2) KLT 548] and Sajeev Kumar v. Dhanya [2008(1)KLT 978] have already held, following the decision in Rohtash Singh v. Smt.Ramendri & Ors.[JT 2000(2)SC 553] that the R.P.F.C No.233/06 2 fact that divorce was granted on the contumacious adulterous conduct is no reason to absolve the husband of the liability to maintain the divorced wife. The fact that the decree for divorce is challenged, does not, according to us, alter the situation at all. If, at least one instance of adultery is proved, the divorce decree is liable to be upheld. If, on the contrary, not even one instance of adultery is proved, the claimant cannot obviously be held to live in adultery and consequently the defence raised against the claim for maintenance of the wife in the absence of divorce will have to be upheld. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the challenge against the liability to pay maintenance cannot be sustained. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and the same may be reduced. Rs.1,300/- per mensum is the quantum awarded. Going by the needs of the claimant/divorced wife aged 28 years, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination be held that the amount of Rs.1,300/- awarded per mensum is excessive. We have also materials to indicate that the husband has a stable employment and has 56 cents of property. He is also shown to have co-ownership property. Two children born in the wedlock R.P.F.C No.233/06 3 are with him, points out the learned counsel for the husband. But, notwithstanding that, we are satisfied that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction cannot and need not be invoked to interfere with the quantum of monthly maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.1,300/- per mensum . The fixation of the quantum of liability does also appear to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. 4. On the basis of the above discussions, this R.P.F.C fails and is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C No.233/06 4 R.P.F.C No.233/06 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 18/06/2009