IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 346 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.41/2006 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KOCHU KUTTEN NAIR, MEKKARA HOUSE, PANAVALLY P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- 1. SMT.VIJAYAM, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, MAGELIPARAMBU HOUSE, EROOR WEST P.O., TRIPUNITHURA. 2. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, MAGELIPARAMBU HOUSE, EROOR WEST P.O., TRIPUNITHURA. 3. LAKSHMI, AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, MAGELIPARAMBU HOUSE, EROOR WEST P.O., TRIPUNITHURA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.346 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- respectively to his wife and 2 minor children. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The petitioner raised a contention that the wife has been residing separately without sufficient cause and without just ground. He contended that her claim for maintenance is excessive. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. The petitioner herein examined himself as RW1. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that on an evaluation of the evidence of the rival contestants it is clear that the claimants are residing separately on “valid, reasonable and probable cause”. Accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. R.P.F.C. No.346 of 2008 2 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? First of all it is contended that the conclusion that the wife is entitled for separate maintenance is not justified. At the Bar it is conceded that an application for restitution of conjugal right filed by the husband has been dismissed by the Family Court. An appeal is said to be pending. I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the finding of fact entered by the court below that the claimant/wife has valid, reasonable and probable cause to justify her separate residence. The admitted circumstance that the petition for restitution of conjugal right has been dismissed does also eminently support that conclusion of the court below. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the said finding of fact deserves or warrants interference in this revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner then advances a contention that the 2nd claimant, ie. the first child, has attained the age of majority. No materials are produced in support of this plea. Counsel prays for time to produce such materials. I am satisfied that this Court will not be justified in awaiting any longer for production of documents which were not produced before the Family Court and which have not been produced by R.P.F.C. No.346 of 2008 3 now before this Court. I need only mention that the petitioner's option to move the Family Court to vacate the order on the ground that the child has attained majority shall remain unfettered. 6. The quantum of maintenance awarded does also appear to be absolutely reasonable even if the petitioner is reckoned as just an able bodied person. The quantum of maintenance fixed does not, in these circumstances, warrant interference. 7. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if there are change of circumstances and if the child has attained majority and if the petitioner gets a decree for restitution of conjugal right, his option to move the court below under Section 127 Cr.P.C to alter the order shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this revision petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-