IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 207 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.256/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ C.G.ANISH, S/O.GOVINDAN, CHENNOTH HOUSE, EDAKADATHI P.O, ERUMELY THEKKU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.RATHEESH SMT.SUMA RATHEESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K.S.SIRIL, D/O.K.R.SUKUMARAN, KANJIKATTU HOUSE, EDAKADATHI P.O,MUKKOOTTUTHARA, KOTTAYAM. 2. GURU PRASAD (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GURARDIAN K.S.SIRIL, THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.207 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this R.P.(FC) assails an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem each to his wife and minor child aged about 4 years. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted and not disputed. The wife contended that she had reason to live separately as matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety was being inflicted on her. The husband contended that the wife was residing separately without any sufficient cause. He further took up a plea that his wife is employed and is not a woman unable to maintain herself. The wife stoutly denied this allegation. According to her, though qualified as an Ayurvedic Physiotherapist, she was not R.P.(FC)No. 207 of 2008 -: 2 :- employed and was not earning any income. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The statement of oath of the claimant as P.W.1 was there against the statement of oath of the petitioner as C.P.W.1. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the evidence of the claimant/wife as P.W.1 deserves to be preferred to that of C.P.W.1. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the ground? The learned counsel for the petitioner raises two contentions. First of all, it is contended that the wife has no sufficient cause to justify her separate residence. On this aspect, we have only the evidence of P.W.1 against the evidence of C.P.W.1. The broad circumstances are there that the wife, who had along with the husband started the journey of life only recently and has a minor child aged about 4 years, is not ordinarily likely to reside separately. She had narrated the circumstances which led to separate residence. Petition for divorce is pending before the matrimonial court. A police complaint has been filed and a 498A prosecution is pending. It is, in these circumstances, that she resides R.P.(FC)No. 207 of 2008 -: 3 :- separately. Both of them are young and in the pink of their health. The infant child is aged only 4 years. On broad probabilities it is only reasonable to assume that the spouses would have chosen to live together unless there be a valid reason. That reason is offered by P.W.1; whereas C.P.W.1 does not offer any satisfactory reason. I am unable to agree that the findings of the court below can, in these circumstances, be held to be not correct, proper or just. 5. There is a further contention that the wife is employed. It is for the petitioner to show that the wife is not unable to maintain herself, has an employment and income therefrom. It is stated that she is employed in the Taj Residency Resort as an Ayrvedic Physiotherapist. It is only reasonable, I feel, to expect the husband to adduce better evidence to prove that assertion which is stoutly denied by the wife on oath. No such evidence is placed before court. 6. I remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court sitting as a court of revision exercising the jurisdiction of superintendence and correction only. I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order deserves revisional correction. Unless the findings of fact are grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to R.P.(FC)No. 207 of 2008 -: 4 :- miscarriage of justice, the court of revision must always be slow to invoke its revisional jurisdiction. I am unable to agree that there is any vice in the impugned order which justifies invocation of such correctional jurisdiction. The quantum of maintenance awarded is also found to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just considering the inputs available about the needs of the claimants and the means of the petitioner – admittedly a driver. 7. This R.P.(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge