IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 330 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.128/2005 of Family Court, ERNAKULAM .................... (S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- THANKACHAN, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 46, RESIDING AT NAMBLAMPARA HOUSE, PIDAVOOR P.O KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.ANTONY KOTHAMANGALAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SHEEJA, D/O.DEVASSY, AGED 32, RESIDING AT PARAKKADAN HOUSE, EAST OKKAL, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, OKKAL P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. NAVEEN JOSEPH, S/O.THANKACHAN, AGED 10 MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, SHEEJA, IST RESPONDENT PARAKKADAN HOUSE, EAST OKKAL, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, OKKAL P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.330 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this R.P.F.C assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.900/- respectively to the claimants, his wife and minor child. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. There is no offer made in this proceedings that the petitioner is willing to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. In fact, the contentions appear to indicate contra. He alleges that the wife is mentally insane and unsound. She has suicidal tendencies. In fact, there is no offer to maintain her on condition that she lives with him. Meaningless controversies are seen raised about the unsoundness of the mind of the claimant/wife. In the nature of the issues to be considered that appears to be irrelevant. The law is now well settled that the husband has to maintain the wife wherever she is. Of course, if he has offers to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him, the wife's explanation if any to justify such separate residence will have to be considered and R.P.F.C..No.330/08 2 it has to be decided. It will then have to be considered whether such wife is residing separately spurning the offer of the husband for just cause or with sufficient reason as stated in the proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C as also 125 (4) Cr.P.C. In this case, it is unnecessary to embark on such controversy as there is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with the petitioner. In fact, in the course of arguments before me in response to pointed question, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if somebody would guarantee that the wife shall not commit suicide, the petitioner will not be aversed the idea of permitting her to reside with him. In short, there is no specific or bona fide offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. 3. On the contentions raised, it appears to me, that the only question to be considered is about the quantum of maintenance. The wife is alleged to be insane and mentally unsound. The court below came to the contra conclusion. At any rate there is nothing to show that she is able to maintain herself. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P8 dated 11/3/1997 attempts to build up an argument that the R.P.F.C..No.330/08 3 claimant/wife had admitted that she is employed. That letter relates to 1997. There is no specific plea or evidence to show that the wife is at present employed and having any income. The minor child is admittedly unable to maintain itself. 4. The court below has awarded an amount of Rs.1,000/- as maintenance to the wife and Rs.900/- to the minor child. According to the petitioner, he was employed elsewhere. But he had to give up the employment and return to his native place because of the alleged insanity and unsoundness mind of the wife. Be that as it may, it is admitted that he is having a property measuring 17 cents of land. I shall eschew all that. Reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, which he undoubtedly is, I am satisfied that the quantum fixed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is absolutely reasonable and does not warrant interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. In these circumstances, this R.P.F.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C..No.330/08 4 R.P.F.C..No.330/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008