IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 21 of 2003() --------------------- MC.35/2002 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.MUHAMMED, OTHAMANGALAM HOUSE, PUTHUR AMSOM DESOM, KODUVALLY POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SUHRA D/O.IBRAHIM CHEENATHUMKUZHI HOUSE, NEELESWARAM AMSOM, KULLIKKI PRADESOM, OMASSERY, PSL, KOZHIKODE. 2. NAJIYA NAZRIN, 4 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY MOTHER/1ST RESPONDENT. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON 02/06/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO. 2298/03 IN RP (FC) NO.21/03: DISMISSED 2/6/2008 SD/- R. BASANT, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 21 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- respectively to the claimants – his wife and child. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. It is also admitted now before me that during the pendency of this revision, the 1st claimant – wife, has been divorced by the petitioner. The claim for maintenance was resisted on the ground that the wife is residing separately without sufficient cause. On this aspect, the claimant – wife, and the petitioner tendered evidence as P.W.1 and R.W.1. The learned Judge of the Family Court on the evidence placed before court preferred to accept and act upon the evidence of R.P.F.C.No. 21 of 2003 -: 2 :- P.W.1 which rhymed with probabilities better. The version of the petitioner as R.W.1 was not accepted by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 2. Though specific evidence about the actual income of the petitioner was not placed before the learned Judge, the learned Judge took note of all the probabilities and the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and came to the conclusion that even as an able bodied person the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to his wife and child. The quantum was fixed at Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- respectively. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the reason? Two grounds are urged. Firstly, it is contended that the court below erred in taking the view that the claim of the wife for separate maintenance is justified. The question is now relevant only from the date of the petition to the date of divorce. Even the fact that the petitioner is admittedly divorced pending the proceedings adds to the probabilities of the case in favour of P.W.1. In any view of the matter, I am of opinion that the court below has committed no error in choosing to prefer the evidence of P.W.1 to that of R.W.1. On probabilities the version of P.W.1 definitely rhymes better and commends itself for acceptance. R.P.F.C.No. 21 of 2003 -: 3 :- 4. The only other question that remains is about the quantum of monthly maintenance. The petitioner is a young man aged about 28 years. There were assertions and counter assertions about the nature of his employment and the income earned therefrom. Even accepting that the petitioner was only an able bodied person who is in law obliged to work, earn his livelihood and support his wife and child, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded cannot be said to be so grossly excessive or inconsistent with the materials available as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. This petition, in these circumstances, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge