IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 RPFC.No. 353 of 2010() --------------------------------- MC.NO.41/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA, WAYAND .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SAJI K.M, S/O. MICLE,37 YEARS, KALATHIL HOUSE, MUNDERI, KALPETTA POST. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/ PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31 2. REJEENA, D/O.JOSE,27 YEARS, THONDIYIL HOUSE, THRIKAIPATTA POST. 673 577. 3. ASHWIN MICLE, AGED 4 YEARS. 4. EDWIN JOSEPH, AGED 2 ½ YEARS, PETITIONERS 3 & 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 2ND RESPONDENT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SMT.O.H.NAZEEBA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P (FC) No. 353 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011. O R D E R Revision is filed by the husband challenging the orders of maintenance passed under suction 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of his wife and two children by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kalpetta. Overruling the objections raised by the petitioner the learned Magistrate directed him to pay maintenance to the wife @ Rs.1,000/-, and two children @ Rs.500/- for one of them and Rs.250/- for the other, per month. Propriety, correctness and legality of that order is sought to be challenged in this revision. 2. Notice given the respondents, wife and children, have entered appearance through counsel. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. There was improper refusal on the part of wife to cohabitate with him and she left his company with the children without sufficient reason, was the main objection raised by the husband to challenge the claim of maintenance canvassed for, apart from contending that he has to maintain his parents, a sister deserted by her husband, RP (FC) No.353/2010 -2- to dispute the quantum of maintenance asked for. He also challenged the case set up by the petitioner with respect to his earning capacity. On the materials placed, which consisted of the evidence of wife as PW1 and husband as RW1 and B1 to B3 on his side, the learned Judge Family Court found that the wife has sufficient reason to have separate residence in as much as her evidence that the she had been subjected to incessant harassment by the family members of husband, including him, was trustworthy and reliable. So far as the earning capacity of the husband to provide maintenance to the wife and children it was found that even on his own evidence he was capable of generating sufficient income to provide the maintenance fixed and awarded. Going through the order passed by the Judge, Family court I find the conclusion formed on the materials placed, does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Learned Judge who had the opportunity to see the husband has not noticed in his physique to doubt his earning capacity, to provide the sum fixed as maintenance to his wife and children. The age of the husband is shown as 36 years, and admittedly, he has working as coolie. He has not let in any convincing material to show that he RP (FC) No.353/2010 -3- does not have the earning capacity to provide the quantum of maintenance fixed and ordered. He has been found to be an able bodied man by the Judge, Family Court. The quantum of maintenance fixed is found to be just and reasonable. The revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE AMG True copy P.A to Judge