IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 190 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.355/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------------- MAHESH GOPI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN GOPI, B.101, BLUE BELLS APARTMENTS, DEVI DYAL ROAD,MULUM EAST, MUMBAI 400 080. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PRIYA K.R., D/O MR. K.RMACHANDRAN, KOLLARUTHY KALAM, THIRUVAZHIYAD POST, AYLUR VIA,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MASTER GAUTHAM - MINOR, S/O MAHESH GOPI, KOLLARUTHY KALAM, AYLUR VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN K.R PRIYA, THE FIRST REPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.190 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 ORDER This revision is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C making the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and child @ Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is conceded. Separate residence is also not disputed. The wife asserted that she is living separately on account of matrimonial cruelty. The husband in turn made an offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. The wife was admittedly residing earlier along with her child in Mumbai where the petitioner is well employed and receiving a very handsome income. 3. On the question about the sufficient cause advanced by the wife to justify her separate residence there was only oath against oath tendered by the 1st claimant/wife and the petitioner/husband. The learned Judge took note of various other relevant inputs also to come to the conclusion that the oral evidence of PW1, the claimant/wife deserves to be preferred to that of the petitioner/husband. The learned Judge took note of the fact that no satisfactory reason is urged by the husband to R.P.F.C. No.190 of 2008 2 justify separate residence. Though he alleged that friends of the claimant/wife were prevailing upon her and prompting her to take up such separate residence, he was not even able to name those friends who were resorting to such improbable conduct. The learned Judge took note of Exts.D1 and D2 letters sent by the wife to support the case of the wife in her oral evidence that she was residing separately for valid reasons. Those letters were written at a time when the dispute between the parties had not arisen and the learned Judge took note of the contents of those letters to support her claim for separate residence. The oral evidence of PW1 was assessed and evaluated for its intrinsic worth and also on broad probabilities by the learned Judge of the Family Court to conclude that the reasons advanced by the wife were true and justified. 4. Above all, the learned Judge took note of the fact that there is no bona fide offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. The husband did not show the courtesy of appearing before the counselor when attempts were made by the court to persuade the parties to resume cohabitation. That conduct of his was reckoned as relevant input to show the absence of bona fide in the offer made by him to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. R.P.F.C. No.190 of 2008 3 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs available, I am not persuaded to agree that there is any valid or justifiable reason which can persuade this Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the impugned order on that aspect. 6. The only other ground of challenge is about the quantum of maintenance fixed. The wife and the child are certainly entitled to live in the same life style in which they could have aspired if they were living with the husband/father. The learned Judge relied on the admitted stand taken by the petitioner in the light of Exts.D3, D4, D5 and D6 which show that the petitioner was getting an income ranging from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs per annum. In these circumstances the direction to pay maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per mensem respectively to the wife and the child does not also warrant revisional interference. At any rate, revisional interference at the instance of the petitioner is not warranted at all. 7. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-