IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 168 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.433/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------- KARAPPAN VEETTIL HAMZA, S/O.IBRAHIM, KASABA, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, THROUGH POWER HOLDER K.V.RAZAK BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------- 1. VATTAPPARAMNBIL KADEEJA, D/O.KUNHAMU, THALAKKAD AMSOM DESOM, THALAKAD, B.P.ANGADI PO., TIRUR TALUK 2. SAFREENA (MINOR), D/O.KADEEJA, BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT, DO.DO. ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL FOR R1 & 2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 168 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition challenges an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- p.m. respectively to his wife and minor child. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. There is no specific contention that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. The petitioner is employed abroad. Some indications about the degree of affluence enjoyed by the respondent can be gathered from the admitted circumstance that there is a watchman permanently posted in the house of the respondent. 3. The claim for maintenance was sought to be resisted on the twin grounds of adultery and divorce. In the counter statement though a general and sweeping allegation is made that the claimant/wife had illicit relationship with some other persons, R.P.F.C.No. 168 of 2008 2 there is no specific allegation of any act of adultery with any specified individual. But at the stage of trial, it is interesting to note that the petitioner pressed into service his own daughter and her husband to advance a new specific theory that the claimant/wife was having illicit relationship with one Pareed, a person who was employed as a watchman in the house. Rws. 3 and 4, the daughter and son-in-law, spoke in support of this theory of adultery. Significantly their evidence does not at all indicate or prove any specific act of adultery. The said Pareed is admittedly an old person. There was no specific allegation or evidence of any physical intimacy between the claimant and the said Pareed. The oral evidence of Rws. 3 and 4 as also the pleas raised by the petitioner can only show the depth to which a person can sink to avoid the liability to pay maintenance to his wife, in whom he admittedly has three children. Less said about the plea of adultery, the better. 4. Coming to the plea of divorce, it must be seen that after the decision in Shamin Ara v. State of U.P. (2002 (3) KLT 537) unilateral despatch of the letter of divorce is in law insufficient to bring R.P.F.C.No. 168 of 2008 3 about a valid divorce. That decision is authority for the proposition that there must be a reasonable cause and more importantly an attempt to mediate and settle the disputes between the spouses by an arbitrator must precede the act of divorce. There is no case even that the husband and the wife or their families had nominated any arbitrator/mediator and such person had made any attempt to settle the disputes. The plea of divorce cannot also, in these circumstances, succeed. 5. The quantum of maintenance fixed by the court below does appear to me to be absolutely reasonable considering the available inputs about the degree of affluence entertained by the petitioner and the needs of the claimants. I am not satisfied that the quantum deserves interference in any view of the matter. 6. This revision petition is hence dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm