IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 RPFC.No. 378 of 2009() ------------------------------------ MC.265/2008 OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVALLA. .................... REVN.PETITIONER/CR.PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- RAJEEV V.R, VILAYIL HOUSE,KUMPLATHAMON P.O., VADASEERIKKARA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------- 1. SUNITHAKUMARI, AGD 21 YEARS, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUDAPPANAKULAM,NEELIPILAVU P.O.,CHITTAR. 2. KANNAN,AGED 1 YEAR(MINOR),KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,KUDAPPANAKULAM,NEELIPILAVU P.O.,CHITTAR. REP.BY THE IST RESPONDENT MOTHER SUNITHAKUMARI, AGED 21 YEARS,KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,KUDAPPANAKULAM, NEELIPILAVU P.O.,CHITTAR. BY ADV. SUNITHAKUMARI THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. --------------------------- R.P(FC) NO. 378 OF 2009 -------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 ORDER --------- Revision petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C No. 265 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the wife and son of the revision petitioner, preferred the above petition before the lower court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with allegation that the revision petitioner neglected the respondents and was not providing anything for their maintenance and they are unable to maintain themself and demanding a sum of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- per month respectively to the respondents for their maintenance. It was also pleaded that revision petitioner is a goldsmith engaged in a jewellery in Coimbatore and had been earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. 2. The revision petitioner contended that the respondents were living separate without any just or reasonable cause and he had been getting a meagre income of Rs. 1,500/- and with that R.P(FC) NO. 378 OF 2009 2 amount he has to maintain his mother and depending sister and he was prepared to take back the respondents and to maintain and also to pay Rs. 500/- for the maintenance of the child . 2. The 1st respondent was examined as PW1. Revision petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Ext.B1 salary certificate was marked on his side. The lower court on appraisal of the evidence arrived a conclusion that respondents were living separate for sufficient reasons and that the respondents are devoid of any independent means for their maintenance. Having taken into account of the entire circumstances, the lower court arrived a finding that income of the revision petitioner would be more than Rs.300/- per day. Consequently the petition was allowed and revision petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs. 800/- to the 2nd respondent. 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order this revision petition was filed. R.P(FC) NO. 378 OF 2009 3 4. Having heard the revision petitioner and perusing the order impugned, I find that the lower court arrived a conclusion that the revision petitioner had been demanding dowry and it is for that reason the first respondent had been living separate. Though the revision petitioner offered to take back the respondents and to maintain them, no step was taken in this regard. I find lack of sincerity in his offer. The conclusion arrived by the trial court is not at all erroneous, but based on evidence and hence the respondents are entitled to an order of separate maintenance. 5. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner had preferred a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In the event of any change of circumstance occurs as a result of th disposal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, revision petitioner is at liberty to apply for alteration under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Taking into account of the value of the essential commodity and the rate of inflation I find that the maintenance R.P(FC) NO. 378 OF 2009 4 awarded by the lower court is not at all exorbitant. Revision petitioner is admittedly a goldsmith. The contention that he is getting only a meagre amount of Rs.1,500/- per month is not at all believable. Now a days even the wages of coolies are very high. It did not appear that the income of the revision petitioner estimated by the lower court is very high or exaggerated. In the event the work of a goldsmith is not remunerative he can go for casual work and easily find out Rs. 1800/- to the respondents together. The amount awarded is not at all beyond the means of the revision petitioner. I find no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted two months time for payment of arrears provided he continued to pay the monthly maintenance without any default. P.S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE PKK