IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 330 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.339/2002 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ PARAYULLAPARAMBATH PAVITHRAN, S/O.CHATHU P.O. MEPPAYIL, MAKKOOL PEEDIKA, VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------ C. NISHA, D/O. RAVEENDRAN, CHERIYAKAYYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPANAM P.O., VADAKARA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.330 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August 2008 O R D E R In this petition, the petitioner assails a direction issued to him under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensum to the claimant, admittedly his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. The spouses lived together only for a period of three months after the marriage. Separate residence is admitted. While the claimant/wife asserts that matrimonial cruelty which emanated from the petitioner is the cause of such separate residence, the petitioner was unable to advance any tangible reason to explain such separate residence. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The crucial question was only whether the wife has sufficient reasons to justify her separate residence. There was only the evidence of the claimant/wife as PW1 and the evidence of the petitioner as CPW1. The learned Judge of the Family Court had to choose between the interested version of the claimant/wife on the one hand and the interested version on oath of the petitioner/husband on the other. The impugned order shows R.P.F.C.No.330/07 2 that the learned Judge had adverted to the evidence in detail. Broad probabilities were taken into account. The explanation offered by the wife to justify such separate residence was considered in detail. The learned Judge appears to have felt that the petitioner is feigning ignorance about vital details. After such consideration of the evidence for its intrinsic worth and also on an assessment of such evidence on broad probabilities, the learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the version of the wife can be preferred to that of the petitioner/husband. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensum. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner raises two grounds. He first of all contends that the claimant/wife has no justifiable reason to explain her separate residence. Secondly it is contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court, sitting as a court of R.P.F.C.No.330/07 3 revision. I am called upon to invoke and exercise the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. A court of revision shall not invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction lightly. Unless the findings of facts are grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn results in failure or miscarriage of justice, the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction shall not be invoked. The discretions exercised in the matter of appreciation of evidence and in fixing the quantum of maintenance shall not be interfered with unless they be perverse or result in miscarriage of justice. 5. In the instant case, there was the interested version of PW1 on the one hand and CPW1 on the other. I am satisfied that the approach made by the learned Judge of the Family Court to the question of appreciation of evidence is fair, reasonable and cogent and in any view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned Judge had erred grossly or perversely in the appreciation of evidence or in coming to the conclusion that the version of the claimant/wife can be preferred to that of the petitioner/husband. In coming to this conclusion, the learned R.P.F.C.No.330/07 4 Judge had specifically taken note of the statement on oath by the petitioner that he does not know how much of ornaments and which ornaments were given to his sister when she got married within a fortnight of the marriage of the petitioner. The case of the claimant/wife was that her ornaments were taken away by the petitioner for the marriage of his sister and she was assaulted and harassed when she demanded return of her ornaments. In any view of the matter, the approach made by the learned Judge of the Family Court cannot be held to be perverse or grossly erroneous as to justify revisional interference. 6. The quantum of maintenance awarded is only Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner is employed as a coolie, it is submitted. In any view of the matter, the quantum fixed cannot also be said to be excessive or perverse as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that steps in execution have already been taken and the petitioner apprehends arrest and detention. He prays that the petitioner may be granted instalment facility to discharge the liability. R.P.F.C.No.330/07 5 8. I am of the opinion that it is not necessary for me to issue any specific directions or express any specific opinion on the question. The petitioner must show his bona fides. If he deposits substantial portion of the amount and prays for time, the learned Judge of the Family Court, needless to say, must consider such request fairly and in accordance with law. No further or specific directions appear to be necessary. 9. This revision petition is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.330/07 6 R.P.F.C.No.330/07 7 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008