IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 499 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.171/2002 OF OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... RESPONDENT: ---------------------------- V.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PARAPACHAN VILA MUDUMBIL VEEDU, KALADI, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA, D/O.CHINTHAMONY, T.C.46/932, S.M.LACK, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MINOR OF DO....DO. 3. MINOR OF DO...........DO. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.F.C. No. 499 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court under section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner, admittedly a police official, to pay an amount of Rs.750/- to his wife and Rs.500/- each to the two children. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is conceded. Liability to pay separate maintenance is not seriously disputed. There is no semblance of a contention raised before me that the petitioner is willing to maintain his wife and children on condition that they reside with him. 3. Thus, the only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of maintenance which the petitioner is liable to pay to his wife and children. A RPFC.499/07 : 2 : contention was raised that the wife is not a woman unable to maintain herself. She was employed on daily wages, it was asserted one moment. In the next, it was asserted that she is in possession of 15 cents of land which belongs equally to the petitioner and his wife and that she is getting income from the coconut trees in the property. A contention was further raised that in such land, there is a provisions store run by the wife from which she gets income. 4. About the quantum of income of the petitioner the wife asserted that he gets an income of Rs.12,000/- per month. According to him, his total salary is Rs.9,500/- per month. He added that his carry home salary (net salary) is only Rs.3,700/- per month. The court below took note of the absence of any effort on the part of the petitioner to place any authentic data before the court about his monthly income. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, opined that the assertion of the wife that the petitioner is getting an income of Rs.12,000/- per month can RPFC.499/07 : 3 : be accepted in the light of his refusal to produce better data which must have been easily available with him. It is in these circumstances that the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order directing payment of the meager amounts of Rs.750/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- respectively to the wife and two children of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner still claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? As stated earlier, the only contention is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. Less said about this contention the better. There is not a semblance of evidence adduced before the learned Judge of the Family Court to even remotely suggest, probabilise or prove the case of the petitioner that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. The learned Judge of the Family Court is eminently correct in coming to the conclusion that in the absence of any effort on the part of the petitioner to prove his actual income which must have been easily possible, the assertion of the wife about his RPFC.499/07 : 4 : income can be accepted. Even that is not necessary. The court below need only go by the assertion made by the petitioner that his monthly income is Rs.9,500/-. The undisputed fact that the petitioner gets an amount of Rs.9,500/- per month as gross salary knocks the bottom out of his grievance that the amount awarded is excessive. 6. There is no representation for the respondent. Surprising, to me, the respondent has not chosen to challenge the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court. In the absence of a challenge from the respondent, it is not necessary for this Court now to go deeper into that aspect of the matter. In any view of the matter, the conclusion appears to be inevitable to me that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid at the rate of Rs.750/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- respectively to the wife and two daughters of the petitioner is eminently reasonable, fair and just and the same does not at any rate warrant interference at the instance of the petitioner. I refrain from RPFC.499/07 : 5 : making any decision as to whether such quantum deserves to be interfered with at the instance of the claimants – wife and children. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the petitioner may be permitted to produce some more documents in evidence to buttress his contention that the wife has alternative source of income. 8. Admission of further evidence in a revision cannot be a matter of course. Even in an appeal where the jurisdiction is much wider, satisfactory and compelling reasons must be shown as to why a party at the appropriate stage in the proceeding before the court below did not produce such documents. No satisfactory explanation whatsoever is offered. I am not, in these circumstances, persuaded to show indulgence to the petitioner by receiving further documents which he has produced in this revision without any satisfactory explanation for not adducing such evidence before the trial court on that aspect of the matter. RPFC.499/07 : 6 : The revisional jurisdiction cannot be likely invoked to permit introduction of further materials before this Court. 9. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant interference at the instance of the petitioner. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks