IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 340 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.287/2003 of Family Court, Kozhikode .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT (S): -------------------- AJITH KUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN MUNDOTH THAZAM HOUSE, CHLAVUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. DEEPA, D/O.DAMODHARAN, PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. DEVIKA (MINOR) REP.BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.340 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensum to his wife and Rs.500/- per mensum to his child. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. There is no dispute raised before me about the direction to pay maintenance to the child. The challenge in this revision petition is only against the direction to pay maintenance to the wife. 2. According to the petitioner, the wife is residing separately without any valid reason. He had issued notice calling upon her to resume co-habitation; but that request was spurned by the claimant. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the wife is residing separately without any valid reason. Though she had alleged cruelty, the learned Judge of the Family Court did not enter any specific finding. No finding has been recorded that she has sufficient cause or just ground to justify her separate residence. In these circumstances, the direction to pay maintenance to the wife is totally unsustainable, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. R.P.F.C.No.340/08 2 3. On the face of it, the contention appears to be impressive inasmuch as the learned Judge of the Family Court does not appear to have specifically considered whether the claimant/wife has just ground or sufficient cause to reside separately. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to take me through the entire materials available. I have been taken through all the relevant data. 4. It has come out clearly from the evidence that the petitioner's offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him is not bona fide at all. It is interesting to note that the petitioner in one breath contends that there is no valid marriage between him and the claimant/wife. According to him, the marriage is null and void and he is taking steps to get the marriage declared null and void. In the next breath, he contends that the wife is mentally unsound and it is for that reason the marriage must be declared null and void. Surprisingly, parallely and simultaneously he raised a further contention that he is willing to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. In fact, a reading of the deposition of RW1 clearly shows that there is no bona fide offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. R.P.F.C.No.340/08 3 5. I must say that I am not at all satisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in which there is no pointed attention rendered to the question whether the wife has sufficient reason or just ground to justify her separate residence. But the totality of circumstances convey eloquently that the offer made is not bona fide and in these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to send the matter back to the Family Court for fresh disposal after rendering a specific finding on this aspect. For the reason that the offer made is found to be eloquently not bona fide and only a ruse to avoid the liability to pay maintenance, I take the view that it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order or send the matter back to the court below. The maintenance awarded is only Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- to the child. Going by the materials available about the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimants, I must say that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. The quantum fixed does not at all warrant interference. 6. In the result, this R.P.F.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.340/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.340/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008