IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 503 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.44/2005 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- V.SANTHOSHKUMAR, S/O. VISWANATHA PANICKER, KULATHILETTU HOUSE, CHENGANNUR KARA, KALLUPPARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- SANGEETHA NAIR, W/O. SANTHOSH KUMAR, UPASANA HOUSE, VIJAYAPURAM, NATTASSERY, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.F.C. No. 503 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by a revised direction issued to him under section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to his wife. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. There is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. In the claim for maintenance, a contention was raised that the petitioner does not have sufficient means and that the claimant is not a woman unable to maintain herself. Before the Family Court, at the first instance, no evidence whatsoever was adduced by the petitioner herein. The claimant examined himself as PW1 and proved Ext.A1. 2. There were certain other proceedings also between the parties. The petitioner challenged all orders passed against him ie., in OP(HMA).83/04 for divorce, M.C.44/05 R.P.F.C.No.503/07 : 2 : claiming maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. and also against a direction to pay amounts being the value of gold ornaments. A Division Bench of this Court by common order dated 7.6.07 set aside the orders subject to condition of payment of amounts. It was directed that the matter shall be disposed of afresh. 3. The matter went before the learned Judge of the Family Court. In the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., no further evidence whatsoever was adduced. The learned Judge, in these circumstances, proceeded to pass the impugned order reiterating the direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to the claimant from the date of the petition. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? His short contention is that the petitioner did not get the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case. He wanted opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his plea that the claimant is not unable to maintain herself and that he is not having sufficient R.P.F.C.No.503/07 : 3 : means. 5. Why did the petitioner not adduce any evidence? Why did he not claim an opportunity to cross-examine the claimant who was already examined in chief. Why did he not examine himself as a witness? What steps did he take to examine any other witness and to adduce any evidence? These questions are not significantly answered satisfactorily. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application to examine a number of witnesses – as many as ten. Significantly the file does not contain any such application filed by him. The petitioner is unable to furnish any details of such petition if any. I shall assume for a moment that the petitioner had filed such application before the court below. But, Even then he has not explained why he has not chosen to cross-examine the claimant and why he had not examined himself as a witness. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant wife submits that the claimant wife is being subjected to unbearable hardship, harassment and vexation. She has been running R.P.F.C.No.503/07 : 4 : from court to court from 2005 for the enforcement to her claim for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been dragging the proceedings unnecessarily and effectively, frustrating the remedy which is available to her under section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. Records of the court below were called for. I have perused the records. There is nothing to show that even after a Division Bench of this Court passed the earlier order dated 7.6.07, any action was taken by the petitioner to cross- examine the claimant or to examine himself in chief. I find considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the petitioner is not really interested in contesting the proceedings but he is only attempting to drag of the proceedings and to perpetuate the vexation of the claimant. Though it is asserted that such an application has been filed to summon ten witnesses significantly the number and details of that application are not made available to this Court. 8. On merits eventhough there is a contention that the R.P.F.C.No.503/07 : 5 : claimant is employed otherwise - by giving private tuition to students and by conducting a tailoring shop, significantly her assertions in the proof affidavit that she has no employment or income remain unchallenged. We can forget about the other pieces of evidence. But, there is not even a semblance of assertion on oath by the petitioner himself that the claimant has any other employment or income. In these circumstances, I am certainly of the opinion that the plea raised that the claimant is not unable to maintain herself must be rejected. No evidence has been adduced and there is no satisfactory explanation for not adducing any evidence. The petitioner is not entitled to the luxury of a further remand to enable him to adduce further evidence in the matter. 9. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that this revision petition only deserves to be dismissed. I do the same. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks