IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 RPFC.No. 79 of 2008() --------------------- MC.108/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... REV.PETITIONER/PETITIONER. ---------------------------------------------- VIJAYA LAKSHMI A.C. W/O. RAMACHANDRAN P., D/O. SUDHAMAN A.C., NOW RESIDING AT KOLATHILA HOUSE, ADOOR VILLAGE, POST URDOOR, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT. -------------------------------------------- P.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. VAYAKKODAN - KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT VACHAL HOUSE, KINANOOR VILLAGE, KATTIPOYIL POST, HOSDURG TALUK. R1 ADV. SRI.T.MADHU BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C) No.79 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August 2011 ORDER The challenge in the revision is against the dismissal of a claim for maintenance against the husband, raised by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Wife and husband, both of them had been examined in the proceeding as PW1 and PW2 respectively. On the side of the wife, documentary evidence A1 to A3 were exhibited. Whereas wife pleaded lack of means and inability for sustenance, alleging that the husband has neglected to maintain her, the husband resisted the claim contending that she is possessed of sufficient immovable property, that too conveyed by him under a registered deed in her favour. Whatever be the merits of the rival case canvassed by the parties in the proceedings, going through the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kasaragod, it is seen that he has not appreciated the materials in the case tendered by both sides. Claim of maintenance canvassed by the wife was declined making disparaging observations and sarcastic comments against her for filing the petition before the court. In fact, the opening sentence in the order is indicative of the approach taken by the learned Judge in examining the claim raised by the wife. Her claim is examined with the following sentence: R.P.(F.C) No.79 OF 2008 2 “After being lived with the respondent as his wife for nearly three decades (the marriage was on 16-05-1979, and the date of separation according to the petitioner was 22-03-2007), after bearing and rearing three children who are now majors, petitioner has suddenly felt the need for a court order to make her husband attend on her”. Evidently, the claim canvassed by the wife, as seen from the aforesaid sentence in the order of the learned Judge, was viewed with a prejudice that she was disentitled on the facts and circumstances involved in the case to seek assistance of the court to claim maintenance from her husband. I do not want to refer to the other sarcastic comments, found in abundance through out the order, which are indicative that the claim canvassed by the wife was not looked into and appreciated on the materials tendered in the case. The very purpose and object of incorporating Section 125 in the Code of Criminal Procedure and vesting the jurisdiction on the criminal court to resolve the dispute thereunder is to provide speedy justice to neglected and abandoned wife and children, destitutes etc. evidently has been lost sight of by the learned Judge Family Court in examining the claim canvassed by the wife. The order impugned not based on the materials tendered in the case, but, on prejudged notions and views, as expressed in the order by the learned Judge, cannot be sustained, and it is liable to be set aside. R.P.(F.C) No.79 OF 2008 3 2. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. Both parties shall be given opportunity to lead further evidence, if requested for. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 05-09-2011. The claim having been raised as early in 2007, the learned Judge, Family Court, shall make every endeavour to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to point out the learned Judge, Family Court, has to dispose the case untrammelled by any of the observations made in this order, but on the materials tendered in the case and in accordance with law. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge