IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 RPFC.No. 1 of 2003() -------------------- MC.74/2001 of Family Court, KOZHIKODE .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- MOIDEEN KOYA, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, M.R.S.MANZIL, JANATHA ROAD, MANJUMMAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.U.NAZAR SMT.SOUMINI JAMES RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. RISILA, D/O.MAMMU, RISILA MANZIL, THUMBAPPADAM, FEROKE PETTA, KOZHIKODE. 2. FATHIMA RIYA, MINOR, D/O.MOIDEEN KOYA, REP. BY 1ST RESPONDENT BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 & R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.1 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per mensum each to the claimant, admittedly his wife and child. 2. The marriage is admitted. Parties are Muslims. There is no contention that the marital tie has been terminated by pronouncement of talaq by the petitioner herein. 3. The wife contended that the petitioner is guilty of matrimonial cruelty. He has sufficient means, it was alleged. The claimants were unable to maintain themselves, it was contended. The petitioner was refusing and neglecting to pay maintenance to the claimants. The petitioner was guilty of matrimonial cruelty against the first claimant, his wife. In these circumstances, maintenance was claimed by the claimants from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. The petitioner, who admitted marriage and paternity, raised a contention that the wife had adulterous relationship R.P.F.C.No.1/03 2 with a neighbour. He disputed his liability to pay maintenance to the claimant/his wife. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The first claimant examined herself as PW1. The petitioner examined himself as RW1. A witness was examined as RW2. She is the Manager working in a hospital. She produced Ext.X1. Exts.B1 and B2 were also marked. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the plea of adultery was not acceptable. The petitioner was guilty of matrimonial cruelty, it was further found. The learned Judge of the Family Court further found that the petitioner having sufficient means has neglected and refused to pay maintenance to the claimants who were unable to maintain themselves. Accepting the evidence of PW1 about the means of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.500/- each was directed to be paid. 6. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Judge of the Family Court must have accepted the plea of adultery. The less said R.P.F.C.No.1/03 3 about the plea of adultery, the better. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence indicates that the first claimant had got her pregnancy aborted. RW1 admitted that she suffered abortion; but denied the contention that the pregnancy was aborted voluntarily and willingly by her. Exts.B2 and X1 cannot, in any way, show that the first claimant/wife is guilty of any matrimonial indiscretion. I am satisfied that Exts.B2 and X1 cannot also help the petitioner to substantiate his plea of adultery. Absolutely no evidence has been adduced to show that there was any act of adultery on the part of the first claimant/wife, a girl aged only about 19 years. The petitioner, the evidence reveals, raised allegations that the child born did not belong to him and was begotten in the illicit relationship with one Nizar, a neighbour. Evidence shows that the petitioner had not even cared to ascertain whether the said neighbour is a married person or not. Significantly, there is not a scintilla of direct or circumstantial evidence to show that the first claimant was guilty of any matrimonial indiscretion. In these circumstances, I agree with the conclusion of the learned Judge of the Family Court that the alleged adultery has not been R.P.F.C.No.1/03 4 established at all. 7. The only other contention raised before me is the one regarding quantum of maintenance. The evidence shows that the petitioner is a person dealing in vehicles and has got substantial income. On this aspect, there is only the evidence of PW1 against RW1. The court below in the facts and circumstances of this case according to me, was eminently correct in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner must pay an amount of Rs.500/- per mensum each to the claimants, that is his wife and child. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Judge of the Family Court does not warrant any interference at all. 8. No other contentions are raised. I am satisfied that this revision petition only deserves to be dismissed. I do so. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.1/03 5 R.P.F.C.No.1/03 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No.1/2003 ORDER 21/05/2008