IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 153 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.290/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ V.K. CHAKRAPANI, S/O ARUMUGHAN, RESIDING AT NIKHIL NIVAS, MANHAPETTA, ELANKUR AMSOM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. INDIRA, D/O CHOZHI. 3. SAJINI (MINOR), D/O INDIRA. 4. NIKHIL (MINOR), S/O INDIRA. (MINOR RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN.) ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOVILAKAM KUNDU, MANJERI AMSOM, MALAPPURAM. BY P.P. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 153 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this revision petition challenges an order passed under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor son at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,200/- respectively. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. There was one more claimant/daughter; but her claim was rejected on the ground that she had attained majority. 3. The petitioner herein contended before the Family Court that the wife is refusing to live with him without sufficient reason. He further contended that the quantum of maintenance claimed is excessive. 4. Before the learned Judge of the Family Court, the 1st R.P.(FC) No. 153 of 2008 -: 2 :- claimant and the petitioner examined themselves as P.W.1 and R.W.1. Exts.D1 to D4 were marked. 5. There was an earlier proceedings for divorce initiated by the husband which was settled before the Family Court. The agreement was that the spouses shall resume cohabitation. That is evidenced by Ext.D1. According to the claimant, the petitioner did not take any steps to take her with him after the joint statement was filed in the application for divorce. The petitioner contended that the boot was on the other leg and that it was the 1st claimant who did not go with him and cohabit. The evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 was evaluated by the leaned Judge of the Family Court on the touch stone of probabilities and the learned Judge appears to have sailed to the safe conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 deserves to be preferred over that of the petitioner as R.W.1. In these circumstances, I find no merit whatsoever in the contention that the learned Judge of the Family Court erred in coming to the conclusion that there was refusal to cohabit without any sufficient reasons by the 1st claimant. 6. The only question that remains is the quantum of maintenance payable. The petitioner admittedly was a driver employed by the K.S.R.T.C. He was so employed on the date of R.P.(FC) No. 153 of 2008 -: 3 :- the claim as also on the date of the order passed. Reckoning his salary during the relevant period, it cannot, for a moment, be contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. He gets an income of about Rs.10,000/- per mensem it was alleged. According to the petitioner, his salary was only an amount of Rs.8,283/- per mensem. Whether we go by the version of the claimant or of the petitioner, the direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,200/- respectively to his wife aged 45 years and the child aged aged about 12 years is found to be absolutely justified. The same does not warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner has retired on superannuation from his service in the K.S.R.T.C. The quantum of maintenance directed is not justified by his present income by way of pension, it is strenuously contended. That is a post order event. Even assuming that the petitioner has retired on superannuation, the petitioner will certainly have to approach the learned Judge of the Family Court with an application under Sec.127 of the Cr.P.C. for modification of the order on the basis of that subsequent intervening circumstance. R.P.(FC) No. 153 of 2008 -: 4 :- In such proceedings, the claimant will be entitled to contend that the petitioner has secured other employment subsequently, if that be the case. At any rate, I am of opinion that it is not necessary for this Court to consider the subsequent circumstances and modify the impugned order. 8. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I need only observe that the option available to the petitioner to approach the Family Court with an application under Sec.127 of the Cr.P.C. shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this revision petition. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge