IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 160 of 2008() ---------------------- M.C.NO.543/2006 OF Family Court, PALAKKAD : REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SHAMSUDEEN, S/O MUHAMMED KHANI, RESIDING AT MANNANKULAMBU VEEDU, KAYARADI P.O., AYALUR(VIA), ADIPERANDA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SAINABA, W/O SHAMSUDEEN. 2. SHAMNA(MINOR), D/O SAINABA. (MINOR RESPONDENT REP. HEREIN BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDET.) BOTH ARE RESIDING AT VAYALIPADATH ARIYUR THEKKUMURI DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.160 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- per mensum respectively to the claimants - his wife and child. 2. The child has attained majority during the pendency of the proceedings and the order makes it clear that maintenance is to be paid to the child only till the attainment of majority. 3. The petitioner had raised a contention that the first claimant/wife is not entitled for maintenance on the ground that he had divorced her. No specific date of divorce or manner in which divorce is effected is pleaded. The first claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. She asserted that the matrimony continues. In her cross-examination, no specific case was taken about the date on which the divorce was effected. Suggestion was thrown at her and that also shows that she was divorced in 1989. Date of divorce, the manner in which divorce took place R.P.F.C.No.160/08 2 and the manner of pronouncement/communication of the divorce were all not pleaded nor was any evidence adduced. The petitioner did not examine himself before the court below. 4. Before the Family Court there was only the oral evidence of the first claimant/PW1. No other or better evidence was adduced. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- per mensum respectively. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 5. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order? What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner only challenges the order passed in so far as it relates to the first claimant and the only ground of challenge is that the court below has erred in not accepting his plea of divorce. The first claimant being a divorced wife is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This, in short is the plea raised. R.P.F.C.No.160/08 3 6. The plea of the petitioner herein as also the nature of cross-examination of PW1 establishes beyond the semblance of doubt that the court below was eminently correct in coming to the conclusion that the plea of divorce is an unacceptable story. The petitioner has no valid explanation to explain the deficiency in the pleadings and evidence. A prayer is made that a further opportunity must be given to the petitioner to adduce further evidence; but there is no satisfactory explanation whatsoever as to why relevant evidence was not adduced at the appropriate time before the Family Court. I find no merit in the prayer for the luxury of such a further opportunity. 7. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the impugned order is absolutely justified and does not call for interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 8. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.160/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.160/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008