IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 273 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.536/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- SUDHEER, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER @ SREEDHARA KURUPPU, SUDHINA KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PULLUTE VILLAGE, PULLUTE NORTH P.O., KODUNGALLOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- VALSALA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.SETHUMADHAVA PANICKER, KALARIKKAL, UMMANAZHI P.O., PULAPPATTA (VIA), OTTAPPALAM TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.273 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of the order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.536 0f 2006 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent aged 29 years (at the time of filing the application for maintenance) at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. Petitioner married respondent on 30.8.2003. She alleged ill-treatment, cruelty, neglect and refusal to maintain on the part of petitioner. She has a case that she was even locked up in the room and her relative had to come for her rescue. According to the respondent, petitioner has illicit connection with his aunt. She stated that petitioner is a famous astrologer earning Rs.500/- per day and has landed properties. Petitioner denied the allegations against him and claimed that respondent is a cruel wife who spoiled his life. He claimed that on account of the ill-reputation brought to him, he has lost his clients in astrology and is now working as a watchman earning Rs.2,100/- per month. Both sides adduced evidence in support of their contention. It came out in evidence that alleging cruelty petitioner had filed a petition for divorce but after taking evidence that petition was dismissed. That order became final. On the other side complaint preferred by the respondent for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code resulted in acquittal of petitioner. Regarding that acquittal learned Judge has pointed out that appreciation of evidence in a criminal proceeding is RP(FC) No.273/2009 2 entirely different from that in a civil proceeding. Learned Judge observed that since petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of respondent ended in dismissal petitioner cannot any more contend that respondent was cruel. Learned Judge has considered the evidence and has come to the finding that petitioner was cruel to the respondent and that made her eligible for separate residence and maintenance. I do not find reason to differ from that finding. 2. Petitioner has raised a contention that he is working as watchman and earning only Rs.2,100/- per month. He stated so as RW1 and produced Ext.D4, certificate said to be issued by the manager of the concern where he is allegedly working. RW2 is one of the signatories in Ext.D4 and supported the petitioner. But it came out that except Ext.D4 there is no scrap of paper to show that petitioner is working as watchman. Ofcouse RW2 has an explanation for that - it is because petitioner is not a permanent employee. According to RW2, the duty time of petitioner is from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. but petitioner says that he does not know whether there is a night watchman for the concern. Learned Judge observed that if petitioner was actually a watchman of the concern, he would not have been unaware of that fact. In these circumstances, learned Judge was not inclined to accept the evidence of petitioner (RW1) and RW2 and Ext.D4. Conclusion of the court below require no interference. 3. Even according to the petitioner he is an astrologer his case being RP(FC) No.273/2009 3 that he lost clients on account of ill-reputation brought by respondent. In other words, his efficiency as an astrologer is not under challenge . He is otherwise capable of earning . Therefore the sum of Rs.1,500/- per month awarded to respondent as maintenance cannot be taken as something beyond his reach. 4. Petitioner has a case that respondent is earning as an astrologer and examined RW3 in proof of that. But apart from vehemently suggesting that respondent is earning as astrologer, RW3 was not able to give the details. That defence was also not acted upon by the court below for cogent reasons. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that respondent owned landed properties and produced Ext.D2, information petitioner had collected from the Village Officer concerned under the provisions of the Right to information Act. Ext.D2 shows that respondent’s father has 1.10 acres of land. That is not a property owned by the petitioner. At any rate she has no absolute right or possession of it . There is no evidence on record to show that respondent is capable of maintaining herself. On going through the order under challenge and hearing learned counsel I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order under challenge. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks