IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 RPFC.No. 6 of 2008() -------------------- MC.15/2007 of THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1 ------------------------------------ C.P.SAMEER, 27 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN @ BAVA, CHAKKALI PARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM, TIRUNAVAYA P.O., TIRUR TALUK, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MOIDEEN @ BAVA, AGED 56, CHAKKALI PARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM, TIRUNAVAYA P.O., TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENTS:PETITIONERS ------------- 1. NASIYA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.MARAKKAR HAJI, CHENATH HOUSE, IRINGAVOOR P.O., TIRUR TALUK. 2. KADEEJA, AGED 1 YEAR (MINOR), D/O.C.P.SAMEER, (MINOR PETITIONER IS REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.(F.C)No.6 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner herein suffers by an order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance to his wife and child. 2. The marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. There is no case of any payment made to the claimants by the petitioner after separate residence. 3. The petitioner made an offer that the wife must go and reside with his parents at the matrimonial home and that if she does so, the petitioner is willing to maintain the claimants. The said offer was resisted with the plea of cruelty. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence. The claimant adduced evidence as PW1. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the claimant wife is entitled to separate maintenance. The quantum of maintenance was fixed at Rs.2,500/- per mensem to the claimant wife and Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the 2nd claimant child. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the R.P.(F.C)No.6 of 2008 2 grievance ? First of all it is contended that separate maintenance awarded to the wife is unjustified. It must first of all noted that in order to consider the plea of cruelty, the husband must make an offer which is valid in law. The husband is employed abroad. He is not available in India. It is such husband who offers to maintain the wife on condition that she goes and lives along with his parents. Moideen v. Nabeesha [2007(1) K.L.T 324] is authority for the proposition that such an offer is no offer at all under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The husband must make an offer to maintain the wife on condition that she “lives with him” and not with his parents. The offer made in this case suffers precisely from that inadequacy. For that simple reason the petitioner's offer cannot be reckoned as a sufficient and valid offer under law and therefore such an offer made by him cannot enable him to avoid liability under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. We now come to the challenge against the quantum. The evidence available really indicates that the parties enjoy affluent financial circumstances. The petitioner is employed abroad. The amount directed to be paid is Rs.2,500/- per mensem to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the child. Indications about the degree of affluence enjoyed by the petitioner can be gathered from the evidence of RW1, the father R.P.(F.C)No.6 of 2008 3 of the petitioner who tendered evidence on his behalf. The learned Judge of the Family Court has adverted to that aspect specifically in the impugned order. RW1 stated that though he and his wife do not need any financial support from the petitioner, the petitioner is good and kind enough to send an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensem to them. Less said about the challenge against the quantum directed to be paid in favour of the wife and child in these circumstances, the better. I find no merit in the challenge raised against the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid in favour of the wife and child. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is a common order in an O.P and an M.C. The challenge is raised against the direction/decree in the O.P. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on the claim made in the O.P. The petitioner's right to challenge the direction in the O.P shall remain unfettered. 7. This petition is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- R.P.(F.C)No.6 of 2008 4