IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 33 of 2004() --------------------- MC.101/2003 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MANJERI. B .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPDONDENT: ------------------------------------------- K.K.SIVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, KARIBANNOOR HOUSE, BOOTHANAM COLONY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.K.B.SAJEESH SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.C.S.SUNIL SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS : --------------------------------- 1. SANTHA KUMARI, 41 YEARS, D/O.AYYAPPAN CHETTIYAR, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE, KALLAYAMPADAM, P.O. NILAMBUR. 2. RAHUL 11 YEARS (MINOR) S/O.SIVAN, (MINOR PETITIONER REP. BY MOTHER/GUARDIAN IST PETITIONER). BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 33 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails the order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay an amount of Rs.500/- and Rs.400/- respectively to his wife and child. 2. The marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is admitted. While the wife contended that she was obliged to take no separate residence, unable to stand the matrimonial cruelty inflicted on her by her husband, the petitioner contended that she had gone away to her house without any cause. She was unwilling to look after the four children who were born in his earlier marriage. The wife in that marriage had committed suicide. Maintenance was claimed at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each. It was contended that the claim amount was excessive. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The rival contestants examined themselves as PW1 and RW1 respectively. Exts.D1 and D2 were produced. They have no bearing on the R.P.(FC) No. 33 OF 2004 2 question of entitlement of the wife for separate maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court was thus left with the uncorroborated testimony of the rival contestants on oath. The learned Judge attempted to consider the evidence of both sides to ascertain whose testimony, is more acceptable. In that endeavour the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the oral evidence of PW1 deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order preferring the evidence of PW1 to that of RW1. 4. There is no representation for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on two grounds. First of all it is contended that the preference shown by the learned Judge to accept and act upon the evidence of PW1 and not that of RW1 is not justified and the same warrants revisional interference. Secondly it is contended that, the quantum of maintenance is excessive. I must alertly remind myself of the nature and quality of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of revision exercising the supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. R.P.(FC) No. 33 OF 2004 3 The impressions gathered by the trial Judge in the course of examination of witnesses are indeed very relevant and crucial while exercising the discretion as to whose evidence should be preferred. Broad probabilities have got to be assessed. I am of opinion that the learned Judge of the Family Court had undertaken that endeavour carefully. That for a long period of 11 years the spouses had admittedly lived together were alertly noted. The four children by the previous marriage must have been small kids at the time of marriage. All of them had been brought up and it is seen that now those children must have been at an advanced age. One of them had got married even, it is submitted. The claimant PW1's assertion is that the children have very good relationship with her and they used to call on her. It is the petitioner who alone had disagreement with the claimant wife. The fact that the children of the petitioner have not been examined in support of his assertion of irresponsibility on the part of the claimant wife is also in the circumstances of this case relevant. In any view of the matter I am not persuaded to agree that, there is any reason which can persuade this Court to interfere with the discretion exercised R.P.(FC) No. 33 OF 2004 4 by the court below in choosing to accept and act upon the evidence of PW1 in preference to that of RW1. That discretion does not warrant any revisional correction. 5. The only other question is about the quantum of maintenance. The amount awarded is only Rs.500 and Rs.400/- respectively. Even reckoning, the petitioner as just an able bodied person, I am of opinion that the quantum fixed does not warrant interference at all. 6. This revision petition in these circumstances only deserves to be dismissed and I do so. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb R.P.(FC) No. 33 OF 2004 5 R.P.(FC) No. 33 OF 2004 6