IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 106 of 2004() ---------------------- MC.216/2002 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, MANJERI DATED 30.5.03. .................... : REVN.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- RAVI, S/O.CHINNAN, VALIPARAMBAN HOUSE, MELATTUR P.O., VALIYAPARAMBU. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- 1. CHOLAKKAPOYIL SREEJA, D/O.C.P.VELU, CHOLAKKAPOYIL (H), THARISU (P.O.), (VIA.) KARUVARAKUNDU. 2. SREEJITH (MINOR), S/O.RAVI, MINOR REP: BY MOTHER/GUARDIAN IST PETITIONER. 3. ANJALI, (MINOR), D/O.RAVI, MINOR, REP: BY MOTHER/GUARDIAN BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 TO 3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC). No. 106 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner assails a direction issued to him under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay an amount of Rs.500/-, Rs.400/- and Rs.400/- respectively to his wife and two minor children aged 5½ and 2 years on the date of the petition. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is accepted. The petitioner took a plea that the claimant had gone away from his house without any justifiable reason. The claimant wife examined herself as PW1. The petitioner examined himself as RW1. A witness was examined as RW2 in support of the theory that PW1 had left on her account to her residence taking the two children with her. Only Ext.P1, copy of the registered notice sent by the petitioner calling upon PW1 to resume cohabitation, was marked. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs found the evidence of PW1 more appealing and inspiring. She had alleged specific reasons that obliged her to reside separately. Even going by the evidence R.P.(FC). No. 106 OF 2004 2 of RW2, the spouses were living separately and there were disputes between them. Therefore, the only question to be decided was whether the evidence of PW1 is to be preferred to that of RW1. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an evaluation of all the circumstances in paragraph 11 opined that when all circumstances are considered, it is unlikely that the claimant would have left the matrimonial home without the consent or knowledge of the respondent. The learned Judge did not accept the theory advanced by the petitioner that the claimant/wife had left the house as she was not willing to look after the aged parents of the petitioner. Claimant wife is found to be facing financial difficulties and it is very unlikely that such a woman would leave the safety and security of the matrimonial home to take up separate residence. 4. I am called upon to invoke the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I am not persuaded to agree that such jurisdiction can be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. The preference shown by the learned Judge of the Family Court to accept and act upon the R.P.(FC). No. 106 OF 2004 3 evidence of PW1 over that of RW1 and RW2, does appear to me to be absolutely justified. Quantum of maintenance awarded is also found to be absolutely reasonable, considering the probative inputs available about the needs of the claimant and the means of the petitioner herein. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that this RP(FC) does not deserve to be allowed. This petition is accordingly dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb R.P.(FC). No. 106 OF 2004 4 R.P.(FC). No. 106 OF 2004 5