IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 143 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.646/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONERS:PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAIHANATH, D/O.MACHINCHERY MAMOOTTY, PARAPOOR, TIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RIZVANA-MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER-MOTHER-GUARDIAN. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O.KALLANKUNNAN BEERAN, PARAPOOR, TIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 143 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.646/04. The wife and two and half year old child of the respondent therein moved an application for maintenance and the Court below rejected the maintenance to the wife and granted Rs.400/- to the child. It is against that decision the wife has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. At the out set I may like to state that the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction has got only limited power and unless the appreciation of the evidence is perverse or there is total misappreciation of evidence the Court cannot interfere on that aspect. Time and again the Apex Court has also cautioned that when analysis of the facts by the trial court is attempted to be interfered by the appellate court the appellate court should caution itself that it has not seen the witness and it does not know the demenour of the witness whereas the Court R.P.(F.C.) NO. 143 OF 2005 -:2:- below did have the opportunity to do the same. Therefore the Courts are directed to very slow in displacing the appreciation of evidence of the trial court. I say so for the reason that here the matter is to be decided purely on the question of oral evidence. Now the clear case of the wife is that on 27.6.2004 with demand for dowry and to bring 5 sovereigns of gold she was beaten mercilessly which resulted in losing of two teeth and that had necessitated a separate living. 3. On the other hand the husband would contend that the wife is a person who is really very violent and had twisted his hand while he was undergoing treatment for dislocation in a bus accident and when it was questioned by the mother the allegation is that poison was poured into tea and it was administered to the mother. So if the above mentioned acts are possible then certainly one shall not hold that the wife can live in such a fashion. 4. So far as the story on 27.6.04 is concerned the wife had deposed before Court that she had gone for delivery of the last child on the 9th month of pregnancy and thereafter had R.P.(F.C.) NO. 143 OF 2005 -:3:- never returned to the matrimonial home. If this version is true and correct then the version that the incident took place from the matrimonial house could not be correct as the child was two years at that time. Therefore going by her own evidence it is clear that the incident on 27.6.04 is totally unbelievable. Under ordinary circumstances when such a merciless treatment is meted out to her she would have gone and complained it to the police. Even if it is taken for granted that she has sustained injuries thereunder certainly she would have taken treatment for the same and for which also no evidence or any materials are available before Court. 5. But the story as spoken to by the husband about the teeth is in the fashion that there was a decay of her teeth and he had taken her to the hospital and removed it. When there is such a plea the wife should have been more cautious by producing some documents before Court. It is also to be remembered that hereafter there had been a talk of mediation. According to the husband the mediation was to settle the matter on account of the issues with the mother-in- R.P.(F.C.) NO. 143 OF 2005 -:4:- law. At least the wife would admit that there was a talk of mediation and it was at that time she had returned the passport and licence to the husband. There was no necessity for an obedient and humble wife to take away passport and licence of the husband which was very essential for his livelihood. This would indicate that all that spoken to by PW1 is not correct. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends that there cannot be a rejection of maintenance on the ground of cruelty. It has to be stated that in order to arrive at a decision regarding the reason to live separately so many factors are to be tacked on and considered. When the person who claims maintenance herself behaves in a cruel fashion and steps out of the matrimonial home it has to be held that she has no reason to live separately. Therefore I cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel on that point. 7. So these are all matters that had been analysed R.P.(F.C.) NO. 143 OF 2005 -:5:- and appreciated by the Family Court. The Family Court had given other reasons as well and after analysing the evidence of PW1 and RW1 arrived at a decision to accept the case of RW1 rather than PW1. I do not find that such an approach of the Court below is perverse or on misappreciation of evidence. When it is so this Court sitting in the revisional jurisdiction is not expected to give its own views in evidence and come to a different conclusion. So the rejection of maintenance to the wife is to be sustained and I do so. 8. Now regarding the claim of the minor child. The husband is a person who knowns driving. He is already maintaining his three children and the mother. He has got the legitimate responsibility to look after his 4 children for the reason they had not committed any sin and after considering the back grounds of the husband only a nominal increase can be granted at this stage and therefore I am inclined to enhance the maintenance granted to the child from Rs.400/- to the Rs.500/- payable from the date of petition. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of confirming the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 143 OF 2005 -:6:- rejection of maintenance to the wife and modifying the order of maintenance to the child from Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- payable from the date of petition. The mother is authorised to draw the amount on behalf of the child. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-