IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 93 of 2008() --------------------- MC.358/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... : REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. CHATHANKATTIL KARAPPAN, NELLOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUNAVAYA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. INDIRA, D/O. ARAMUGHAN, VELUTHEDATH PARAMBIL, PURATHOOR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RIMJU - MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT - MOTHER - GUARDIAN. 3. SUJITHA - MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT - MOTHER - GUARDIAN. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI.DARSAN SOMANATH THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.93 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/-, Rs.800/- and Rs.700/- respectively per mensum to his wife aged 39 years and children aged 13 years and 12 years. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Altogether there are four children. The eldest daughter is already married. Second daughter has already attained majority and she is not a claimant in the M.C. It is submitted at the Bar that the claim filed by her as an O.P. under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is pending before the Family Court. The claimants - wife and two minor children contended that they are unable to maintain themselves and the petitioner having sufficient means is refusing and neglecting to maintain them. They claimed an amount of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- per mensum as maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petition was opposed. It was contended that the petitioner herein is willing to maintain the wife on condition that R.P.F.C.No.93/2008 2 she lives with him. A contention was raised that the wife was residing separately without sufficient cause. The quantum of maintenance claimed was excessive and perversely beyond the means of the petitioner, it was contended. 2. Parties went to trail on these contentions. Claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. There was a contention that the petitioner was running business taking buildings on lease. He denied the same. Therefore PW2, the landlord was examined to confirm that the petitioner had taken buildings and was running business in such buildings. The claimants produced Exts.P1 to P6 series. The petitioner produced Exts.D1 and D2. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.800/- and Rs.700/- respectively to his wife and two minor children. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? First of all the learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this court that the R.P.F.C.No.93/2008 3 contention that the wife is residing separately without sufficient cause has not been considered by the learned Judge. Factually that assertion appeared to be correct. Because of this, the records were called for. When the records were called for, it is evident that the petitioner had not pressed the claim that the wife should come and reside with him. In fact, the assertion of the wife that she is residing separately because of the cruelty was not challenged in cross-examination with a specific offer to her to come and reside with the petitioner herein. Moreover when the petitioner took the witness stand as RW1, he made a categoric admission that he is willing to maintain all the three petitioners. He did not make an offer to maintain the first claimant/wife on condition that she lives with him. On oath, he did not take up such a stand at all. On the contrary, he admitted that he shall maintain all the three claimants by paying maintenance. Evidently, it is because of this that the learned Judge did not embark on a detailed discussion as to whether the wife is justified in insisting on separate maintenance. That contention is obviously without any merit and it must be said fairly that the learned counsel for the petitioner, after perusing R.P.F.C.No.93/2008 4 the records did not press the contention. What remains is only the quantum of maintenance. The petitioner was admittedly employed in the gulf countries for a long period of time. It is his case that he was employed there as a driver. Whatever that be, better evidence on that aspect is not forthcoming. Suffice it to say that he was employed in the gulf countries for a fairly long period of time. He admittedly has a driving licence for heavy vehicles even now. That he has the ability to work and earn his livelihood as a driver has been established. Of course, ritualistically Ext.D2 has been produced. 4. The evidence clearly shows that the petitioner, after his return from his place of employment abroad was running a jewellery at his native place. Some idea about the degree of affluence which he enjoys can be gathered from this circumstance. Of course, PW2 asserted and Ext.D1 shows that one of the shop rooms has been surrendered; but it remains that one shop room continues to be in the possession of the petitioner. The wife asserted that the petitioner is having sufficient means and he gets income from such employment/business. R.P.F.C.No.93/2008 5 5. The amount awarded to be paid as maintenance is only Rs.1,500/-, Rs.800/- and Rs.700/- respectively. I shall eschew all other pieces of evidence. Admittedly the petitioner has a heavy driving licence and is shown to be a person aged about 49 years on the date of the petition. That undisputed circumstance itself is seen to justify the quantum fixed as per the impugned order. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances to invoke the revisional powers of superintendence and correction to interfere with the impugned order. 6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.93/2008 6 R.P.F.C.No.93/2008 7 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008