IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 414 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.61/2008 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN C.GEORGE, AGED 42 YEARS, LANKATHARA VEEDU, KALLELI PUTHUVELIPPADI, ARUVAPPULAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SUSAMMA STEPHEN, AGED 42 YEARS, CHERUKUNNATHU VEEDU, MANAGARAM MURI, KONNI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. GIO STEPHEN, (MINOR), AGED 13 YEARS, CHERUKUNNATHU VEEDU, MANAGARAM MURI KONNI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. (REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C)No.414 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 ORDER On 16/11/1991, the revision petitioner married the first respondent in accordance with the customary rites and on 13/9/1993 the matrimony was blessed with a child, the 2nd respondent. But the harmony did not last. Alleging that the revision petitioner, under the influence of alcohol had physically and mentally assaulted, the first respondent along with the 2nd respondent left the matrimonial home and filed a petition as M.C.No.61 of 2008 before the Family Court, Thiruvalla under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was contended that the respondents are devoid of means for their maintenance and that the revision petitioner refused to pay anything for their maintenance. It was further alleged that the revision petitioner is an ex-service man and he had been getting pension and had employment as a security officer, in addition to landed properties and fixed deposit. The respondents sought monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively. 2. The revision petitioner admitted the status of the respondents. He denied the cruelty as well as the consumption of the alcohol and contented that the respondents are living R.P.(F.C)No.414 of 2009 2 separate without any just or reasonable cause and that the first respondent was employed as a receptionist in a hospital and earning Rs.7,500/- per month and that the revision petitioner was getting only Rs.2,000/- as pension and that there is no fixed deposit and there is no landed property and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. During enquiry, the first respondent was examined as PW.1 and Exts.P1 series and P2 were marked. Revision petitoner was examined as CPW.1 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. On appraisal of the evidence, the lower court arrived a finding that the respondents are living separate for sufficient cause, namely cruelty and there was neglect and that the revision petitioner is getting a monthly pension Rs.2,447/- and is in his forties. He was hale and healthy and had been able to find out means to maintain his wife and child. The contention of the revision petitioner that the first respondent was employed as a receptionist in a hospital was found against. The contention that the revision petitioner was working as a security officer was believed. Ultimately the petition was allowed by order dated 18/8/2008 and the revision petitioner was directed to pay R.P.(F.C)No.414 of 2009 3 monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- and Rs.900/- respectively to the respondents 1 and 2. 4. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the order of the court below and the evidence from either side, I find that as found by the trial court the first respondent had succeeded to establish the cruelty alleged. It is also pertinent to note that though the revision petitioner had offered to maintain them after denying the cruelty alleged, no step was taken for restitution of conjugal rights. In the above circumstance, I find that the court below correctly arrived a conclusion that the respondents are living separate for good reason and there was neglect. Therefore they are entitled to separate maintenance. 6. Though it was alleged that the first respondent was employed as receptionist in a hospital, while in the box, the revision petitioner did not care to mention the name of the hospital. According to the revision petitioner, he filed a petition to cause production of certain documents from the hospital and R.P.(F.C)No.414 of 2009 4 to examine administrative officer. But that was declined by the court below. Since the revision petitioner could not mention the name of the hospital where the first respondent was working, it appears that it is a wild allegation. No reason was also urged for failure to cause production of the document before examining the first respondent as PW.1. It is pertinent to note that PW.1 had categorically denied the suggestion that she was a receptionist and had been getting income. In the above circumstance, I find lack of bona fides in applying for orders to cause production of the documents after the evidence of the parties. I find that the court below had rightly rejected the request. In effect, there is no material to come to a conclusion that respondents are able to maintain themselves. 7. Ext.B2 would show that the revision petitioner had been getting a pension Rs.2,447/-. The lower court had observed that the revision petitioner was in his forties and has no case that he has been physically incapacitated to go for work. It is in that circumstance the trial court had arrived a conclusion that the revision petitioner can find out source to maintain the respondents. Though the respondents contented that the R.P.(F.C)No.414 of 2009 5 revision petitioner had bank deposit, Ext.B1 belied the contention and it disclosed that the bank deposit was in the name of the first respondent and it was later withdrawn. It appears that taking into account of that aspect the trial court awarded only Rs.800/- to the first respondent, when Rs.900/-was awarded to the second respondent. The second respondent is now aged 14 years and he is in High School class. Taking into account of the value of the essential commodities and the requirements of the respondents, I find that the amount awarded by the trial court is not at all exorbitant. Neither it is beyond the means of the revision petitioner. There is no reason to interfere with the order. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.