IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 33 of 2009() --------------------- REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------ M.IMBICHAMMED @ BICHAHAMMED S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 48 YEARS, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, MAMMALLIPARAMBA,CHUNGAM P.O. FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.C.SAKKEENA, D/O. MOOSAKKOYA, CHALIYAM HOUSE, FEROKE COLLEGE P.O.' KOZHIKODE. 2. MUHAMMED ANS, MINOR, S/O. K.C.SAKKEENA 3. AYISHA HIBA, (MINOR) D/O. K.C. SAKKEENA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.33 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rates of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- per mensum respectively to his wife and two minor children. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The petitioner was admittedly employed abroad till January 2007. This petition was filed in 2005. The petitioner has a case that he had come back from Dubai and has been working as a checking inspector in a bus. 3. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1 and the petitioner/husband examined himself as RW1. A witness was examined as RW2 on the side of the petitioner in support of his contention that the payment of rent for the house occupied by the wife was being made by him. 4. The wife contended that she is entitled to separate maintenance on the ground of ill treatment. The husband contended that there was no ill treatment at all. The wife R.P.F.C.No.33/09 2 produced certain documents to show that she has suffered injuries consequent to assault on her. The husband also took up the contention that the brothers of the wife had attacked him and he had suffered injuries. The short question to be decided is whether separate residence is justified or not. Though admittedly separate residence was going on for some period of time, the husband has not initiated any proceedings to ensure that his wife returns to him. Tell tale circumstances about the strain in their relationship and explanation for separate residence is available from the very contention of the rival contestants that they have suffered injuries consequent to ill treatment/attack by the others/relatives. 5. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the conclusion of the learned Judge of the Family Court that the wife is entitled to claim separate maintenance in the facts and circumstances of this case is absolutely justified and does not, at any rate, warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The direction to rely upon the explanation offered by the wife appears to be absolutely reasonable. The quantum of maintenance awarded R.P.F.C.No.33/09 3 also does appear to me to be absolutely reasonable. The fact that the petitioner was employed abroad for a long period of time can even be overlooked. Reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person also, the direction to pay amounts of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- per mensum respectively to the wife and children cannot be held to be unreasonable or perverse as to warrant invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 6. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.33/09 4 R.P.F.C.No.33/09 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008