IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 198 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.63/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITITIONER/RESPONDENT IN M.C.NO.63/06 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CYRIL JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 33 YEARS, THENKUZHI HOUSE, UNIVERSITY ROAD, UNIVERSITY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER IN M.C.NO.63/06 --------------------------------------- JOHY JOHN, AGED 24, D/O.MARTHA JOHN, CHACKALAKKAL HOUSE, OPP.KRIPA JEWELLERY, KOCHI. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 198 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this R.P.(FC) assails an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. Though a contention was raised that the wife was employed and is residing separately without valid reason, those contentions are not seriously pressed before me at the stage of this revision petition. Though it was asserted that the wife was employed, not a scintilla of evidence was placed before court to show that she was actually employed and was not a woman unable to maintain herself. 3. On the question of the right of the wife for separate residence also, there was only oral evidence of the R.P.(FC) No. 198 of 2008 -: 2 :- claimant/P.W.1 against that of the petitioner/R.W.1 and the court below, in the facts and circumstances of this case, was eminently correct in coming to the conclusion that the claimant/wife is entitled for separate maintenance. 4. The petitioner is admittedly employed as an Electrician. An amount of Rs.750/- per mensem directed to be paid by an Electrician aged 33 years to his wife aged 24 years cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be excessive as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the quantum. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a qualified Electrician. It is his contention that the records relating to his proficiency in the employment of an Electrician are kept inside an almirah in his house, the key of which has been taken away by her when she returned to her residence. The learned counsel contends that because of this conduct of the claimant/wife the petitioner is unable to secure employment as an Electrician. It is further submitted that steps have been taken before the Family Court to get the contents in the Almirah restored to him. This contention also does not in any way help the petitioner to claim absolution from liability or to claim reduction of the quantum of maintenance awarded. In R.P.(FC) No. 198 of 2008 -: 3 :- any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the revisional jurisdiction deserves to be invoked. 5. This R.P.(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge