IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 193 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.681/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/CR.PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MAMMU, KRIKUNNATH VEEDU, CHUNANGAD AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- KADHEEJA, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.HAMSA, MUKKATTIL, NEDUNGODUR DESOM, MUNDAMUKA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.193 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner assails the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the Family Court obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- per mensum to the claimant, admittedly his first wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is not disputed. Re-marriage of the petitioner is admitted. That he has a child in such re-marriage is also admitted. All the children born in the marriage between the claimant and the petitioner are being looked after by the petitioner. Two of them have already been well married. All these facts are not disputed. The claimant/wife asserted that she is entitled for separate maintenance on the twin grounds that the petitioner has re- married and he has been guilty of matrimonial cruelty against her. There is the significant circumstance that no specific offer has been made by the petitioner to maintain the claimant on condition that she lives with him. What then is the dispute? The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the direction R.P.F.C.No.193/08 2 to pay an amount of Rs.700/- per mensum is excessive. I am unable to agree. Even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, I am unable to agree that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.700/- per mensum is excessive, unreasonable and unjust as to warrant the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The petitioner may have asserted that he, a sixty one year old person, is working as a coolie only and that he has no better sources of income. The claimant may not have been able to adduce better and more satisfactory evidence to prove the precise source of income of the petitioner; but no court can afford to ignore broad probabilities. The admitted statements of the petitioner about the manner in which his two children were married is certainly indications of the degree of affluence which the petitioner enjoys. Even the fact that he, without prevailing upon his first wife, thought of re-marrying and begot a child in such re- marriage at a fairly advanced age must give the court an idea about the degree of financial affluence which the petitioner enjoys. I am in these circumstances satisfied that in any view of the matter, the direction to pay an amount of Rs.700/- per R.P.F.C.No.193/08 3 mensum to the claimant/wife who admittedly does not have any source of income cannot be said to be excessive or perverse to warrant revisional interference. The challenge fails. 3. This revision petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.193/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008