IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 119 of 2003() ---------------------- M.C.NO. 186/1999 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- AMMINI ANTONY, W/O. ANTONY, PAVANATHRA HOUSE, EDAMPADAM DESOM, VARAPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.M.A.RASHID RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- ANTONY, S/O. OUSEPH, ATTULLY HOUSE, MOOLAMPALLY, KADAMAKKUDI. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 119 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who is the claimant in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She had staked the claim against her husband, the respondent herein. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also conceded. The respondent made an offer to maintain the claimant/wife on condition that she lives with him. The claimant advanced reasons to justify her separate residence. The parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined herself as PW1 and a witness as PW2. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on her side. On the side of the respondent, he examined himself as RW1. He examined RW2 in support of his contention that the claimant has sufficient means and is employed. He examined RW3, a doctor, to disprove the contention of the claimant that she was unnecessarily detained in a mental asylum. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondent. R.P.F.C.No. 119 of 2003 2 Ext.X1 patient record was produced and marked by RW3. PW2 examined on the side of the claimant is a Bank Manager and he was examined to throw light on the aspect as to whether the claimant has substantial deposits in her name which she had closed and withdrawn during the pendency of the proceedings. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious evaluation of all the relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the grounds urged by the claimant to justify her separate residence are not acceptable. In these circumstances the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order holding that the claimant, who resides separately without sufficient reasons spurning the offer of her husband to maintain her on condition that she lives with him, is not entitled to claim separate maintenance. 4. There is no representation for the petitioner when the matter came up for hearing. The learned counsel for the respondent has advanced detailed arguments. I have been taken through the depositions of the witnesses and the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. Essentially and basically we have R.P.F.C.No. 119 of 2003 3 the evidence of PW1 against that of RW1 on the question as to whether the claimant is justified in taking up separate residence. The court below has adverted to all the relevant circumstances. It is to be taken note that the children born in the matrimony are residing with RW1. The learned Judge took into account the six circumstances which were urged by the claimant in support of her claim for separate maintenance and came to the conclusion that those grounds cannot be accepted in the light of the materials available. 5. I am called upon to invoke and exercise the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I am persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Judge of the Family Court had adverted to all the relevant and crucial aspects and had come to a possible and cogent conclusion that the grounds urged for separate residence by the claimant wife, who refused to accept the offer of the husband to maintain her on condition that she lives with him, are not proved and are not acceptable. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is absolutely no justification in the R.P.F.C.No. 119 of 2003 4 prayer to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the impugned order. 6. This R.P.F.C. is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm