IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 117 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.41/2007 of THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... : REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ KUNJUMON, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. UNNUNNI, KUZHIVILAYIL HOUSE, VAYALA P.O. VAYALA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.B.BALRAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUNIL KUNJUMON, AGED 31 YEARS D/O. K.GEORGE, PALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTAMUKAL, ARUKALIKKAL WEST,ADOOR P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SHIBIN.S.KUNJUMON, AGED 9 YEARS (MINOR)S/O.KUNJUMON, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT,MOTHER) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.117 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,200/- per mensem to his wife and Rs.800/- per mensem to his minor son, aged 9 years. The direction to pay maintenance to the child is not challenged. Marriage and separate residence are admitted. In the counter statement there was an allegation raised that the wife was living in adultery. No serious attempt is made to substantiate that contention when it reached the stage of evidence. At that stage the petitioner offered to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with him. She refused the same alleging matrimonial cruelty. The petitioner further contended that the wife is employed. No evidence whatsoever was adduced in support of such plea. The petitioner was admittedly employed abroad. He contended that he had come back to India and is without any work now. 2. The rival contestants examined themselves as PW1 and CPW1. No other evidence whatsoever was adduced. R.P.F.C. No.117 of 2008 2 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the 1st claimant-wife is entitled to separate maintenance. The offer made in the witness stand for the first time by the petitioner who had in the counter statement alleged adultery was found to be not bona fide or sufficient to claim absolution from the liability to pay maintenance. 4. I am in total agreement with the conclusion of the court below that the 1st claimant wife is entitled for separate maintenance. I concur with the court below that an amount of Rs.1,200/- per mensem is absolutely reasonable and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the impugned order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C does not warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. This Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-