IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 85 of 2008() --------------------- MC.521/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------- KUTTYAMAKARATH KOYA, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.KUTTYHASSAN, KOTTUMPURAM, TANUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------- 1. SUHARA @ SHAHINA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.SIDIQUE, THENGILAKATH, MUKKADA, PARIYAPURAM.P.O. TANUR, MALAPPURAM. 2. SAYEED, AGED 10 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, THE FIRST RESPONDENT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.85 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the petitioner allegedly aggrieved by a direction issued to him under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.750/- respectively to his wife aged 25 years and child aged 9 years. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is conceded. Separate residence is also admitted. The short questions were whether there is sufficient ground for the wife to reside separately and about the quantum of maintenance that is payable. 2. On the question of sufficiency of the ground for separate residence, there is only oath against oath tendered by the rival contestants. The wife contended that the husband was guilty of matrimonial cruelty. His brother was also guilty of matrimonial cruelty against her. Criminal proceedings has been initiated also. Husband made an offer to resume co-habitation in the house of such brother of his. The wife did not agree. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the learned Magistrate of the Family Court was eminently justified in coming to the R.P.F.C.No.85/08 2 conclusion that for the purpose of deciding a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C, there was sufficient grounds to justify separate residence. The petitioner's claim for restitution of conjugal rights if allowed later, the petitioner shall of course be entitled to claim alteration of the order of maintenance. 3. The only other question is about the quantum of maintenance. Admittedly, the petitioner was a tailor getting an amount of Rs.5,000/- per mensum. Evidence further shows that he had purchased an item of property worth Rs.1,00,000/- out of the savings from the tailoring shop; but he stated that he had decided to leave that job and has started working as coolie. The learned Judge did not accept this weired theory; but held that it would be reasonable to assume that the petitioner continues as a tailor and gets handsome income from such employment. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the quantum fixed by the learned Judge of the Family Court does not warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.85/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.85/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008