IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 11 of 2008() --------------------- MC.264/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- K.A.SAGEER, AGED 35, S/O. LATE ABDUL KAREEM, KUNNATH HOUSE, VELLANKALLUR P.O., IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKUMAR.G.CHELUR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SUMI, AGED 27, W/O. K.A.SAGEER, FLAT NO.4-A, STAR HOMES, CHERUPARAMBATHU ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020. 2. MOHAMMED FARHAD, AGED 5, S/O. SUMI, MINOR, REP. BY HIS GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER SUMI, W/O. K.A.SAGEER, FLAT NO.4-A, STAR HOMES, CHERUPARAMBATHU ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P. (FC) No. 11 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is against a direction issued under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and child at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively from the date of the petition. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. That the spouses are living separately is also admitted. The wife contended that the petitioner was guilty of matrimonial cruelty towards her and that was prompted her to take up separate residence. The petitioner, on the contrary, made an offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives as a good wife along with him. The offer to maintain has lost its significance and does not deserve to be considered in detail in the light of Ext.A16 whereby the parties had agreed to terminate the R.P. (FC) No. 11 OF 2008 -: 2 :- matrimonial tie. That agreement was not acted upon and the petitioner had not given divorce to the claimant/wife on the ground that payments due to him under that agreement had not been made. 3. Before the court below there was only oath against oath of the claimant/wife as P.W.1 and the petitioner herein as R.W.1. I have been taken through the depositions of P.W.1 and R.W.1. The noting in the appendix that no witness had been examined is obviously incorrect. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court, after considering all the relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to claim separate maintenance and that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- for the child would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed. 5. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him must have been accepted. The petitioner has no reason to explain as to why his wife was residing separately; whereas the wife has a case that she and her 3 month old child along with her are residing separately because R.P. (FC) No. 11 OF 2008 -: 3 :- of the matrimonial cruelty heaped on her by her husband. Probabilities will necessarily have to be taken into consideration. The version of P.W.1 rhymes better with probabilities than the version of the petitioner who is unable to find any satisfactory reasons for such separate residence by his wife along with the child aged 3 month. 6. Be that as it may, it may not really be necessary to consider the ground for separate residence in any greater detail as it is evident that Ext.A16 shows that the petitioner had also no serious intention to resume cohabitation and he had agreed to divorce his wife subject to conditions and such divorce has not been effected so far on the basis of some matrimonial disputes. It is easy, in these circumstances, to come to the conclusion that there is no bona fide and genuine offer to resume cohabitation. 7. Coming to the quantum, the learned Judge of the Family Court had considered all the available inputs. The difficulty of an estrange wife to adduce evidence about the quantum of income derived by her husband was realistically taken note of by the learned Judge. The learned Judge did advert to the available inputs which clinchingly and convincingly showed the degree of financial affluence which the petitioner enjoyed. The circumstances brought forth in the examination of the petitioner R.P. (FC) No. 11 OF 2008 -: 4 :- as R.W.1 amply justify the direction to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively per mensem to his estranged wife and child. At any rate, the quantum fixed by the learned Judge of the Family Court does not warrant any interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 8. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge