IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RPFC.No. 400 of 2010() ---------------------- (M.C.61/2009 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA) .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER --------------------------------------- HARILAL, AGED 37 YEARS, SREEKRISHNA VILASAM (AMBATTU), VALLICODU P.O., VALLICODU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE RESPONDENT/CR. PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ T.D.PREETHA, AGED 32, THADISSERIL VEEDU, VELLIYARA P.O., PLANKAMON, ARIYOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V.TEKCHAND SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ----------------------------------- RP(FC).NO.400 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the petitioner in M.C.No.61 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. He instituted the above petition against the respondent under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order to modify and cancel the maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the respondent in M.C.No.97/2004 whereby the revision petitioner was ordered to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- from 30-08-2005. The revision petitioner contended that the respondent had been living in adultery and thus she became pregnant and hence the order of maintenance is liable to be cancelled. The respondent denied the allegations and prayed the dismissal of the petition. As part of the enquiry the revision petitioner was examined as PW1. While so, the respondent filed a memo stating that she had got employment with effect from 2-9-2010 and so she was not claiming a maintenance from that date onwards and she has no objection to cancel the order of maintenance from that date onwards. The lower court on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion that the revision petitioner failed to prove that either respondent was living in adultery or that she was conceived out of such life. Going by the order impugned, it is seen that the revision petitioner has no direct knowledge RP(FC).NO.400 OF 2010 2 regarding the so called adulterous life or the conception. What he had deposed is that she had seen the respondent travelling in a motor bike ridden by another man and so he presumed that the respondent had been living in adultery. As regards the pregnancy, when PW1 saw the respondent at the bus stand, she had carrying belly. If that is true, now she might have delivered. But there is no such case. The evidence of PW1 is not at all convincing. The Family Court had correctly rejected the plea of the revision petitioner and cancelling the maintenance order with effect from 02-09-2010, on the date on which the respondent got an employment. Smt.Bindu learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner sought to cancel the order with effect from the date of the petition. Going by the evidence on record, I find no merit in the submission. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent was either living in adulteray or got employment from the date of the petition. I find no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. The revision petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE pm