IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 154 of 2008() ---------------------- M.C.NO.186/06 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER : COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ BEJOY.K, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, 281/XVI, AZAD LANE, ALUVA P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN 683 101. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------ SMT.U.K.SHEENA, D/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, KENAMPULLI, KACHERIMEDU, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.154 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order obliging the petitioner, a divorced husband, to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per mensem to the claimant/his divorced wife. 2. Marriage and divorce are admitted. The claim for maintenance was resisted on the first ground that the claimant is not a woman unable to maintain herself. The further contention was raised that the petitioner does not have sufficient means. Thirdly and lastly a contention was raised that the quantum of maintenance claimed-@ Rs.2,000/- per mensem is excessive. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined herself as PW1 and the petitioner examined himself as RW1. No other witnesses were examined. No documents were proved. 4. The court below considered the evidence of PW1 and RW1 on the disputed aspects. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the fact that even though there was an assertion that the claimant was employed and is not a woman R.P.F.C. No.154 of 2008 2 unable to maintain herself, she had asserted that she was unemployed. No better evidence is adduced by the petitioner to indicate or suggest that she was actually employed or was getting any income. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the fact that the petitioner did not have a consistent and specific case as to where the claimant was employed. The conduct of the petitioner in not making efforts to get necessary documents to prove such employment of the claimant was also reckoned as a circumstance by the learned Judge of the Family Court to choose to act on the evidence of PW1 in preference to that of RW1. 5. About the means of the petitioner, he asserted that he was not employed. He admitted that he was earlier employed in an establishment. The learned Judge of the Family Court did not accept the version of the petitioner as RW1 that he was sitting idle without doing any job. His qualification and his previous employment were taken note of by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 6. The petitioner is a young man of 32 years. It is idle to swallow his version that he is not employed. I concur with the learned Judge of the Family Court that the claimant is not shown to be able to maintain herself. In these circumstances, in any R.P.F.C. No.154 of 2008 3 view of the matter, I am satisfied, that the direction to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per mensem cannot be said to be grossly excessive or perversely high as to persuade this Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 7. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-