IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 222 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.742/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/CR.PETITIONER --------------------------------------- PRABHAKARAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. LAKSHMI AMMA, KUNNATH, THRIKKADIRI AMSOM DESOM OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. RADHAKANI @ RADHAKUMARI, AGED 51 D/O. KAIPPULLI LAKSHMI AMMA EZHUVANTHALA DESOM, NELLAYA AMSOM OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 222 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this R.P.F.C. challenges an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. 2. Marriage was disputed. According to the claimant, the petitioner was a widower with one child. It was after the death of the first wife that the parties entered into matrimony. According to her, she was residing separately on account of the cruelty inflicted on her by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner took up the stand that there was no valid matrimony. He, however, conceded that the claimant was living with him. He admitted having executed Ext.D1, a registered agreement of marriage. He admitted that to the world outside they are held themselves to be husband and wife. Subsequent to the execution of Ext.D1, there was a legal valid marriage in accordance with the customary rites performed between the R.P.F.C.No. 222 of 2008 2 parties. The petitioner submits that they had never intended to inter matrimony and recitals to that effect in the admitted documents were made only to avoid scandals and rumors. Ext.P2 is a photograph, where the petitioner and the claimant had posed for a photograph, as man and woman. In Ext.P1 identity card the petitioner is shown to be the husband of PW1. In Ext.P3 it is shown that before the Taluk Supply authorities they were spouses living together under the same roof. It was also significant that the petitioner had offered to maintain the claimant on condition that she lives with him. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court in the wake of these overwhelming circumstances came to the conclusion that there was sufficient proof of a marriage as required to be established in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Judge carefully observed that if the parties have any dispute surviving, they can approach the civil court and get an adjudication on the disputed status as husband and wife. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding that there was sufficient evidence to prove the marriage even R.P.F.C.No. 222 of 2008 3 for a finding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not justified. I am unable to agree. It is true that the evidence of PW2 was not accepted by the learned Judge of the Family Court. But that does not militate against the totality of other circumstances that are available. The evidence of PW1 in the light of Exts.P1 to P3 and Ext.D1 as also the incongruent unsatisfactory and the discrepant version of RW1 (the petitioner herein) is eminently sufficient for this Court to concur with the conclusion of facts recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court that there was sufficient evidence to prove the marriage under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said finding does not warrant any interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction vested in this Court. 6. The only other contention is that the quantum of maintenance awarded viz. Rs. 1500/- p.m. is excessive. On the admitted stand of the petitioner he gets a total monthly income of Rs.4,500/- out of which he has been directed to pay only an amount of Rs.1,500/- to the claimant, who it is held, is proved to be his wife. In any view of the matter, the quantum of maintenance awarded is also absolutely R.P.F.C.No. 222 of 2008 4 justified and does not warrant interference by the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. 7. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm