IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 146 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.93/2007 of FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------- VINCENT S/O. MATHEW, AGED 38 NALLOOKKUNNEL NARKAKKANAM IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.ULAHANNAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------- 1. JOLLY, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. MATHEW MOOZHIYARKAD HOUSE, VAZHAVARA P.O., KATTAPPANA. 2. JASMINE, AGED 3 YEARS, D/O. VINCENT DO. BY GUARDIAN FIRST RESPONDENT. 3. STATE OIF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 146 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 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 rate of Rs.750/- p.m. to the claimant/wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. The only contention raised was that the wife is not justified in residing separately. It is contended that the petitioner is willing to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with him. The claimant/wife asserted that she is not willing to reside with him because of matrimonial cruelty inflicted on her. 3. The parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined herself as PW1 and the petitioner examined himself as CPW1. No independent evidence was adduced by either. In the course of evidence it was admitted that the husband has been tried, found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. R.P.F.C.No. 146 of 2008 2 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an evaluation of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimant/wife is justified in not accepting the offer of the husband/petitioner to reside with him. Matrimonial cruelty has been satisfactorily established, it was held. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court thereupon considered the materials available about the means of the contestants and the need of the claimant. It was held that the petitioner is at any rate liable to pay the amount of Rs.750/- p.m. to his wife. 6. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no satisfactory evidence available which can justify the claim of the wife for separate maintenance. The court below must have held that there is no sufficient reason to justify such separate residence of the wife, contends the learned counsel. 7. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The court below had before it the evidence of PW1, the claimant/wife on the one side and the petitioner herein on the other. There was thus oath against oath. There was also the broad probabilities that a wife aged 37 years with a R.P.F.C.No. 146 of 2008 3 child aged 3 years was choosing to reside separately from her husband. There is also circumstance that the petitioner has been found guilty, convicted and sentence by a criminal court for the offence of matrimonial cruelty punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said judgment had not been produced and at any rate the said verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have not become final and an appeal is pending. 8. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of Revision exercising supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. The trial courts have the advantage of seeing the witnesses perform in the witness stand before it. The subtle discretions exercised by the trial court in the matter of the appreciation of evidence cannot be lightly interfered with by superior courts. In the facts and circumstances and in the light of the broad probabilities emerging from the circumstances, I am satisfied that the learned Judge of the Family Court has committed no such error warranting revisional interference in choosing to accept and act upon the oral evidence of PW1 to that of CPW1. The challenge raised cannot, in these circumstances, succeed. R.P.F.C.No. 146 of 2008 4 9. Under the impugned order there is a direction to pay maintenance to the 3 year old child of the petitioner also at the rate of Rs.750/- p.m. No serious challenge is raised on that part of the direction. The quantum of maintenance awarded appears to be absolutely reasonable and justified considering the nature of the materials available about the needs of the claimants and the means of the petitioner. Though it was asserted that the petitioner was employed in a company, better and satisfactory evidence in support of that assertion was not made available. However, the learned Judge of the Family Court relied on the circumstance that admittedly the petitioner is employed as a coolie and has about 25 cents of land in his name. Even reckoning him as an able bodied person, the direction issued to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- p.m. each to the claimants must be found to be absolutely reasonable. 10. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm