IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 10 of 2009() --------------------- MC.898/2007 of Family Court, Malappuram. .................... REV.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------- VINEESH, S/O.N.RAGHAVAN, R/AT.NADUVIL HOUSE, PO.FEROKE COLLEGE, AZHINILAM, MALAPPURAM REP. BY HIS FATHER AND P/AT HOLDER N.RAGHAVAN, S/O.CHEKKU. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER --------------- GREESHMA, D/O.SURESH R/AT.MANASASARAS, PO.VALLIKKUNNU, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.10 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per mensum to the claimant, his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. The spouses lived together only for a short period after the marriage. The husband returned to his place of employment. He later came back and now continues to be employed abroad. 3. The claim for maintenance was resisted on the ground that the wife is living in adultery. Names of no persons are mentioned with whom the claimant is allegedly living in adultery. On the side of the claimant, the claimant examined herself as PW1 denying the allegations of matrimonial infidelity. The petitioner did not examine himself; instead, his father tendered evidence. The father holds power of attorney from the petitioner herein. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. 4. No specific evidence of adultery was adduced. In fact, even during the cross-examination of the claimant/PW1, no specific allegations of adultery with anyone at any time was R.P.F.C.No.10/09 2 alleged. It appears that reliance was placed on Ext.D1, a slip of paper, in which the claimant is alleged to have admitted that she had no relationship with anyone other than the petitioner herein except three persons. This is relied on primarily in support of the theory of contumacious living in adultery by the claimant. Ext.D2 is a compact disc which was also pressed into service. In the course of evidence of RW1, the father of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner could speak nothing about the compact disc. It is stated that the compact disc has the conversation between the petitioner and the claimant recorded in it. Significantly, there was no cross-examination of PW1 on the basis of any statement recorded in the compact disc. No specific portion of the compact disc was put to PW1 when she was in the box. There was no attempt to contradict her with any specific portion of what is recorded in the compact disc. Even when RW1 was examined, there was no specific and definite evidence tendered of the contents of the compact disc. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has grossly failed in proving his plea of adultery. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner R.P.F.C.No.10/09 3 assails the impugned order on the ground that an application filed by the petitioner to get the voice in the compact disc identified by sending it to an expert was turned down by the learned Judge. I find no merit in the contention at all. At the first instance, there has been no attempt to contradict the claimant with any specific portion of the recorded statement in the case diary. The question of proving the voice would arise only if it is proved that there is some statement/admissions in the compact disc and that the claimant/wife is denying or disputing that particular statement. That is not the situation in this case at all. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the grievance that the petitioner did not get the opportunity to get the compact disc examined by an expert is without any basis and substance. There is significant and total absence of any specific evidence about the alleged adulterous relationship of the claimant. Less said about the theory of adultery the better on the basis of evidence in this case. Ext.D1 cannot be pressed into service. PW1 has the case that she was compelled to sign the same. No one has a specific case that it amounts to admission of post marriage relationship of PW1 with any other person. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the direction for payment R.P.F.C.No.10/09 4 of maintenance does not at all warrant any interference. The quantum fixed, I note, is absolutely reasonable considering the fact that the petitioner is admittedly an engineer working abroad and the claimant is not shown to have any income of her own. The quantum fixed also does appear to be absolutely reasonable. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner airs an apprehension that the finding rendered in this petition may stand against the petitioner in the petition for divorce which he has filed. I make it clear that the option of the petitioner to establish his plea of adultery in the claim for divorce shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this R.P.F.C or the finding rendered in the M.C. The petitioner's option to do a proper cross-examination of PW1 and if necessary to request the court to get the voice in the compact disc identified, shall also remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. 7. In the result, this petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.10/09 5 R.P.F.C.No.10/09 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008