IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 175 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.20/2007 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... : PETITIONER/ORIGINAL COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- IBRAYI, AGED 78, UKKADEN VEEDU, THARUVANA.P.O, PORUNNANNUR AMSOM, MANANTHAWADY. BY ADV. SMT.SHERLY M.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/ORIGINAL PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- 1. AYISHA, AGED 70, W/O. IBRAYI, UKKADEN VEEDU, THARUVANA.P.O, PORUNNANNUR AMSOM, MANANTHAWADY TALUK. 2. KHADEEJA, AGED 38, D/O. IBRAYI, UKKADEN VEEDU, THARUVANA.P.O, MANANTHAWADY. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.175 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing the petitioner, who is shown in the petition as a person aged about 75 years, to pay maintenance @ Rs.250/- and Rs.500/- respectively to his wife aged 70 years and physically disabled daughter aged 38 years. 2. Marriage is admitted. The spouses have been living separately for about 32 years. This is also not disputed. That the 2nd claimant is physically disabled is also not disputed. 3. The wife contended that the petitioner is having sufficient income from his properties. He had married again. In such marriage, he has 10 children. In the marriage with the petitioner also he has 4 children, of which the 2nd petitioner is a disabled person. She remains unmarried. 4. The claim for maintenance is resisted on the ground that the petitioner is not having sufficient means. It was further contended that the 1st petitioner could depend upon her children for maintenance. R.P.F.C. No.175 of 2008 5. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The 1st claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence. 6. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the petitioner has sufficient means, the assertion that he is having landed properties and income from them having not been specifically controverted. It is, in these circumstances, that the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to pass the impugned order. 7. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The short grievance raised is that the finding that the petitioner has means is grossly incorrect. The quantum of maintenance which is directed to be paid is also excessive and perversely disproportionate to the means of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 8. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I have been taken through the oral evidence of PW1, ie. the claimant-wife as also the impugned order. In para.5, the Family Court has considered and answered this contention in the following words: R.P.F.C. No.175 of 2008 “The petitioner deposed that the counter petitioner is having landed properties and is getting income there from. That is not seen denied by the counter petitioner. His case is that he assigned 12 cents of land to one daughter and 4 cents of land to a son. This is an admission that he is having properties. So it is to be presumed that he is getting income there from. There is a specific case for the petitioner is that she was having one acres of land at the time marriage. For this land the counter petitioner obtained pattayam in his name. This allegation is not specifically denied by the counter petitioner. In addition to that it is seen that the counter petitioner is having 10 children in his second marriage and he is maintaining them. It is therefore very evident that the counter petitioner is capable to provide maintenance to the petitioner. He is wilfully refusing and neglecting to pay maintenance to the petitioner. Considering the totality of the evidence I find petitioners are entitled to get maintenance from the counter petitioner and the counter petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the petitioners.” 9. An idea about the degree of affluence of the petitioner can be gathered from the fact that he has the asset of 14 children and 2 wives. The claimant/wife had asserted that the petitioner was having landed properties measuring 1 ½ acres. She had also R.P.F.C. No.175 of 2008 asserted that he has a shop run by him. These assertions remain uncontroverted by any counter evidence tendered by the petitioner herein. No reason whatsoever can be deciphered as to why such evidence in rebuttal was not produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that further opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence. No satisfactory reasons having been shown for offering the luxury of a further opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence, I am not accepting the request of the petitioner. 10. The learned Judge had occasion to see the parties and evaluate the evidence tendered on oath. I am unable to agree that the impugned order suffers from any such vice which can justify invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. In the nature of the material placed before court and on broad probabilities the conclusion of the learned Judge of the Family Court does appear to me to be absolutely cogent, reasonable, fair and just. The same does not warrant any interference. 11. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- R.P.F.C. No.175 of 2008