IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 54 of 2008() --------------------- MC.169/2005 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER : COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------- SADANANDHAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, AGED 64 YEARS, KOLLAM VARIETH HOUSE, EVOOR SOUTH, KEERIKADU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------- OMANA, AGED 53 YEARS,D/O.GOURI KUTY, VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F(C).No.54 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to his wife as monthly maintenance. 2. The marriage is admitted. Separate residence was also admitted. A contention was raised that the claimant/wife is unchaste and that is why she refuses to live with the husband. The wife, of course, contended that the husband had illicit relationship with the widow of his brother and that is why he was refusing and neglecting to look after her. Be that as it may, the husband who imputed unchaste behaviour to the wife offered that he is willing to maintain her on condition that she lives with him. Less said about the bona fides of the said offer, the better. It is now trite that raising of unsubstantiated cruel allegations of unchaste behaviour against the wife is itself sufficient cruelty to justify separate residence. 3. The only question that really falls for consideration in these circumstances is the quantum of monthly maintenance that R.P.F(C).No.54 of 2008 2 has got to be ordered to the wife. There is no specific contention or evidence to show that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. The petitioner was admittedly a military pensioner who had served the Forces for about 1 ½ decades. He is admittedly getting his service pension. About what that amount is, there is conflicting assertions. The wife stated that it was Rs.3,000/- per mensem, whereas the petitioner asserted that it was Rs.1,000/- per mensem. The petitioner who is in the best position to produce before the Court authentic documents to prove the quantum, surprisingly chose not to adduce any evidence. Adverse inference under Section 114 (g) was bound to be drawn. 4. Admittedly after his discharge from the Forces he had secured employment as a security guard in a nationalised bank. About the quantum of income that he gets therefrom also, there is dispute. Here also the petitioner did not choose to adduce any authentic evidence which he could easily have produced to show the precise quantum of income which he gets from such employment. The wife asserted that he is getting at least an amount of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. 5. It is in these circumstances that the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order directing payment of an R.P.F(C).No.54 of 2008 3 amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance ? The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and is perversely beyond the means of the petitioner. 6. I must alertly remind myself of the nature quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of superintendence and correction exercising revisional powers. It is by now trite that the revisional powers cannot be lightly and readily invoked to interfere with discretions exercised by the subordinate courts in the matter of appreciation of evidence and in fixing quantum of maintenance which is liable to be paid under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Is the decision grossly erroneous or perverse ? Does such decision work out injustice or failure or miscarriage of justice ? These are the crucial questions which have to be considered. 7. Having very anxiously rendered my thoughts to the contentions laboriously advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered the materials to which my attention has been drawn, I am satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant any revisional interference at all. R.P.F(C).No.54 of 2008 4 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has lost his employment as security guard in the bank during the pendency of the proceedings. Easily, evidence to that effect could have been adduced. The terminal benefits which the petitioner gets on such termination could also have been revealed to the court. That has also not been done. Was there re- employment after such alleged termination ? Opportunity has not been given to the claimant to make such a contention at all. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioner's contention that his service with the bank as security guard has come to termination cannot be reckoned for the purpose of this revision. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he wants to produce 2 documents before the Court. This Court is sitting as a court of revision. Even as an appellate court, the party is bound to show compelling reasons to persuade the Court to accept evidence at the appellate stage. Why was the documents not produced earlier ? What reasons prevented the petitioner from producing the documents before the court below ? These questions remained unanswered. The documents that are sought to be produced are also interesting. One of the R.P.F(C).No.54 of 2008 5 documents is produced to show that there was a valid termination of the marriage long earlier. One must note that it is the husband, who offered to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him, now wants to press into service Annex.A2 document produced in the revision. The other document is one to show that the petitioner had received terminal benefit from the bank on 07.02.05. The same does not significantly speak about any re-employment after such retirement. Nor does it refer to the quantum of benefits received. 10. Be that as it may, I need only observe that the impugned order must be reckoned as one that was passed on the basis of the circumstances available on the date of the petition. Any subsequent change of circumstances if it can be validly established and could have been established before the court below but having not done the same, the petitioner's option to make such materials available before the court below and claim alteration of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C will remain unfettered. 11. This Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- R.P.F(C).No.54 of 2008 6