IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2009 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1931 RPFC.No. 151 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.414/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ---------------------------- ABDUL HAMEED.C.K., S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY.C.K., FEOKE COLLEGE ROAD, RAMANATTUKARA KOZHIKODE. NOW RESIDING AT PATTATHAM POYYIL HOUSE, MANIPURAM.P.O., KALARATHIRI AMSOM, VAVAD DESOM, KODUVALLY. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SARABEEGAM, D/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY.T.M., THALOKUNMNATH HOUSE, RAKATH MANZIL, VIRIPPADAM, VAZHAKKAD.P.O., AKKODE. 2. RAMSEELA, 16 YEARS(MINOR) REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER FIRST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * R.P.(FC) NO. 151 of 2009 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 30th day of April, 2009 ORDER Petitioner who is the husband of the first respondent and father of the 2nd respondent was the counter petitioner in M.C. 414 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram . The respondents filed the said M.C. seeking maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. They proved their case by the oral testimony of the first respondent examined as P.W.1. Eventhough the revision petitioner contended that his wife was having a substantial income and was, therefore, able to maintain herself, except his interested testimony as R.W.1, no acceptable evidence was adduced by him. The Judge of the Family Court, after a careful evaluation of the oral evidence on both sides, accepted the testimony of the first respondent herein as examined as P.W.1 . In a case where the trial judge who had the unique advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their credibility has chosen to accept the testimony of one of the parties, the appellate or revisional court will be loathe to interfere with the said finding. As per the impugned order the learned Judge has ordered the R.P.(FC) No. 151 of 2009 -:2:- petitioner to pay maintenance to the first respondent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and a lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the 2nd respondent who had after more than three months of filing the M.C. had attained majority. The amount fixed by the court below is on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. I am not inclined to interfere with the said order passed by the Family Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as against his total liability of Rs. 49,000/- he has already deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner is given three months time to deposit the balance amount. The amount in deposit as well as the amount to be deposited shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents. This R.P.(FC) is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.