IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 235 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.328/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARGOD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONERS : ------------------------------------------ 1. LAKSHMY, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.NANDAKUMAR BEKAL, D/P.REMESH, RESIDING AT NAGARAKATTE, KORAKKODU P.O., KASARGOD. 2. POOJA, AGED 9 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER LAKSHMY. 3. SANKETH, AGED 4 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER LAKSHMY. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT --------------------------------- NANDAKUMAR BEKAL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.ANANTHA BEKAL, SASI SADANA, KUMPALA P.O., SOMESWARA, MANGALORE TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN FOR R1 SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 235 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are the wife and children of the respondent. The respondent was directed under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance to petitioners 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem each. The claim of the 1st petitioner wife was turned down. Petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the rejection of the claim of the 1st petitioner for maintenance and the quantum of maintenance awarded to petitioners 2 and 3. They pray that the quantum may be enhanced and direction may be issued to pay maintenance to the 1st claimant wife. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. It appears to me to be significant, though that aspect has not been specifically referred to by the learned Judge of the Family Court, that the respondent did not make any effort to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with him. In the absence of such an offer, it is not really necessary that a court to find out whether there is justification for separate residence of the wife. The wife did tender evidence about the circumstances R.P.(FC) No. 235 OF 2006 2 under which she was constrained to take up separate residence. Learned Magistrate, however, did not accept the explanation offered and came to the conclusion that separate residence was not justified. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Judge had erred totally and completely in taking the view that the 1st petitioner's separate residence is not justified. She is not shown to have any affluent circumstances to justify the contention that she was residing separately without any reason. The absence of a specific offer by the husband to maintain her looms large while attempting to appreciate the evidence of PW1. I am of opinion that in these circumstances the court below must have preferred to accept and act upon the oral evidence of PW1, the 1st claimant/wife over that of the petitioner, i.e., RW1/husband. 4. There is material to show that an FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint of the wife that she has been cruelly treated and that her husband is guilty of matrimonial cruelty. A simple reading of the FI statement, Ext.B1, must persuade any one that the grievances raised in Ext.B1 are not that of a R.P.(FC) No. 235 OF 2006 3 recalcitrant wife who wants to somehow justify her separate residence. It is seen from the assertions in Ext.B1 that the short request of the wife was that her husband may not be proceeded against but he may be warned against continuing cruelty against her. The very satisfactory version of PW1 is that she was constrained to take up separate residence against her will but under compulsion of circumstances. 5. The respondent had came before this Court with a revision petition challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children. That petition was dismissed by order dated 17.08.05 at the admission stage. It is later that this revision petition was filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children is too meagre. It is admitted that the petitioner runs a vegetable shop. According to him, he gets an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. But, according to the petitioners, he gets an income of about Rs.10,000/- per mensem. They have a case that the respondent has landed properties also. But, significantly, no semblance of satisfactory R.P.(FC) No. 235 OF 2006 4 evidence or admission is produced or extracted. I must alertly remind myself of the nature and quality of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of revision exercising the jurisdiction of correction and superintendence. I am not persuaded to think that the quantum fixed for the children at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem deserves to be modified or increased in this revision petition. I need only mention that the fixation of the amount of maintenance must be reckoned as having made on the basis of the circumstances that prevailed on the date of filing of the claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In this circumstance, the petitioners can certainly seek modification later. 7. Coming to the quantum of maintenance to be fixed for the wife, I take note of all the relevant inputs including the statement in Ext.B2 that she, i.e., PW1, was employed as Beedi roller. Some meager income must be received by her on that count. Taking all the relevant inputs into account, I feel it safe and just to fix the quantum of monthly maintenance payable to the wife at Rs.1,250/- per mensem. 8. This revision petition is, in these circumstances allowed in R.P.(FC) No. 235 OF 2006 5 part. It is held that the 1st petitioner is entitled for monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per mensem from the date of the petition. Needless to say, credit shall be given to the interim maintenance, if any, paid during the pendency of the petition. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb R.P.(FC) No. 235 OF 2006 6 R.P.(FC) No. 235 OF 2006 7