IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 RPFC.No. 74 of 2005() --------------------- M.C.15/04 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER. ---------------------------------------------------------- VARUGHESE @ KUTTACHAN, AGED ABOUT 27, S/O.LATE MATHEW, PUTHUPPARAMBIL VEEDU, THURUTHIP.O. VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT: PETITIONER. -------------------------- BEENA JOHN, AGED 22, D/O.JOHN CHACKO, KALAPPURACKAL VEEDU, KUNNAMTHANAM P.O. KUNNAMTHANAM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.7746/05 IN RP(FC)NO.74/05 //DISMISSED// SD/- R.BASANT, JUDGE 17.11.2009 SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.)No.74 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 O R D E R Basant, J. Connected Mat.Appeal No.77/2007 has been dismissed by this Court by a separate judgment today. 2. This R.P.(F.C.) is directed against an order obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.750/- per mensem to the claimant/respondent herein, his wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. The impugned order is an ex parte order. The claimant/wife contended that she is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner herein, the marriage between them having taken place in accordance with customary Christian rites on 15.9.2003 at St.Mary's Forona Church, Thuruthy. The marriage was not disputed. The revision petitioner herein appeared for counselling, but he did not thereafter appear or contest the proceedings. The impugned order is thus an ex parte order passed in the absence of the revision petitioner. The claimant/wife and her father had examined themselves as PWs 1 and 2. They had explained the circumstances under which the parties started separate residence. The quantum of maintenance awarded is only Rs.750/- per mensem. R.P.(FC)No.74/05 -2- 4. Today when the matter came up for hearing, there is no representation for the revision petitioner. It is evident and the inference is irresistible that the revision petitioner does not want to challenge the impugned order now. The marriage having been not disputed and PWs 1 and 2 having tendered unchallenged evidence about the circumstances under which separate residence commenced and no attempt having been made to set aside the ex parte order, we are satisfied that the liability for payment of maintenance to the claimant/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot possibly be disputed. The quantum of maintenance awarded is also absolutely fair, reasonable, modest and just and at any rate no interference with the quantum is also necessary. 5. This revision petition is in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn