IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 169 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.274/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... : REV.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ M.ASHRAF, S/O.T.P.MOHAMMED KOYA RULLATYH HOUSE, ENNAPADAM, KALLAI PO., KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- HAIRUNNEESA.K.P., D/O.USMAN, NAZEEBA, M.K.ROAD, IDIYANGHARA, KOZHIKODE-3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.169 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this R.P.F.C challenges a direction issued to him under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the claimant, admittedly his wife. Acrimony between the spouses has a history. In 1993, the wife and child had claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The claim of the child was allowed, but the claim of the wife was turned down. That order was not challenged by the wife. But admittedly parties resumed cohabitation and lived together for a period of about 10 years. It is the case of the wife that the spouses had cohabited in the house of the wife and they used to make occasional visits to the house of the petitioner/husband. It is the case of the wife that the petitioner stopped visiting her and did not maintain her thereafter. She hence claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner took up a plea that the spouses were living together at his house and it was the claimant/wife who, without valid reason, withdrew from the house of the petitioner and started separate residence. According to him she was not R.P.F.C. No.169 of 2008 2 justified in withdrawing from his company and residing at her house. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. A fairly grown up child of the spouses, the only child, was examined as PW2. Pws 1 and 2 asserted that they were always residing in the house of PW1 and they only used to make occasional visits to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner as RW1 asserted that they were residing in his house contrary to the evidence of Pws 1 and 2. He admitted that in the ration card etc. the claimants are not shown as residing along with him at his house. No better evidence was adduced by either side. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in the facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that the cohabitation was always in the house of PW1 and that it is not correct to contend that they were residing in the house of the petitioner and that the claimant/wife had unjustifiably withdrawn from the company of the husband. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge took the view that the wife is entitled for maintenance. Considering the evidence available about the means of the petitioner, the quantum was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per mensem. R.P.F.C. No.169 of 2008 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that separate maintenance should not have been awarded to the claimant/wife. He asserts that it was the wife who had unjustifiably withdrawn from the company of the petitioner. In the nature of evidence that is available from Pws 1 and 2 on the one hand and RW1 on the other and the compelling circumstance that even the ration card will not show that Pws 1 and 2 are residing along with the petitioner at his house, I am unable to find any vice in the findings of fact rendered by the learned Judge of the Family Court which can persuade this Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The quantum of maintenance awarded is modest, reasonable, fair and just. The impugned order does not, in these circumstances, warrant interference. 6. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-