IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1188 of 2003() ------------------------------------------- MC.88/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) CR.PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- P.HAREESHAN S/O. KRISHNAN NIDHIN NIVAS, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM PALLIKKULAM DESOM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.MOHAMMED KUNHI RESPONDENT(S) PETITIONER & STATE ------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.VINEETHA D/O. BHASKARAN, PUTHIYAVETTIL HOUSE, MAILADATHADAM, AZHKODE AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.R.P. No. 1188 of 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 O R D E R -------------- The respondent in M.C. No.88 of 2001 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur who was saddled with the liability to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month has come up in revision questioning the legality, correctness and propriety of the order. 2. It is contended in the revision petition that the learned Magistrate ought to have dismissed the petition since the first respondent failed to prove the allegations in the application for maintenance. The contention is that there is no evidence to show that the revision petitioner failed or neglected to maintain the first respondent. It is contended that there is only the evidence of the first respondent and her witness who spoke about the solemnization of the marriage and about the cruelty stated in the application for maintenance. 3. Going through the order under challenge it would appear that the revision petitioner had even disputed the validity of the marriage with the first respondent. The first respondent gave evidence regarding the marriage and the CRL. R.P. NO.1188 OF 2003 -: 2 :- learned Magistrate found that the contentions raised by the revision petitioner are not correct. But, in the revision petition it is admitted that there is a valid marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent. If in spite of there being a valid marriage, the revision petitioner chose to deny that, that itself indicates cruelty on his part. More over, regarding the alleged negligence and refusal to maintain, the first respondent gave evidence as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2 also. There was no contra evidence. Therefore there was nothing irregular or illegal in the court below acting upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to hold that the revision petitioner neglected and refused to maintain the first respondent. 4. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, what is awarded is only Rs.1,000/- per month. First respondent gave evidence regarding the income of the revision petitioner. He did not adduce contra evidence. Considering the needs of the respondent and the cost of living, I am not inclined to think that the maintenance awarded is a fabulous amount requiring interference. 5. The revision petition therefore fails and it is dismissed. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4710 of 2003 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv CRL. R.P. NO.1188 OF 2003 -: 3 :- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL.R.P. NO.1188 OF 2003 =================== O R D E R 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2008