IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 88 of 2008() --------------------- MC.411/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION/PETITION/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ K.V.SAJEEV, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOLAKKATTIL VEEDU, ANNANADU DESOM, KADAKUTTY AMSOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- MANOMANI, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.ANDAVAN, THIRUKKODE VEEDU, KUTHANUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 88 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem as maintenance to the claimant – his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also conceded. The wife contended that she is forced to reside separately because of the matrimonial cruelty inflicted on her. The husband took up a contention that he is willing to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with him. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined herself as P.W.1 The petitioner examined himself as R.W.1. No other evidence whatsoever was adduced. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious R.P.(FC) No. 88 of 2008 -: 2 :- consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimant was justified in residing separately. All the relevant circumstances were adverted to in detail by the learned Judge to come to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to insist on separate residence. The learned Judge, in particular, entered the specific finding that “the offer made was not bona fide and it did not come from the heart of the respondent.” It is accordingly that the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order with the direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem as maintenance to the claimant. 5. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The petitioner raises a contention that the learned Judge had erred grossly in coming to the conclusion that the wife is entitled for separate residence. 6. I have considered this petition in detail. I must alertly remind myself the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a court of revision exercising correctional and supervisory jurisdiction. Unless the findings of fact entered into by the court below are grossly erroneous or perverse and R.P.(FC) No. 88 of 2008 -: 3 :- such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage of justice, this Court shall not ordinarily invoke its revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. An alert trial court has a significant advantage in the matter of appreciation of evidence as it sees for itself the witnesses tendering evidence before it. 7. Having considered the entire materials available, the court below had entered a specific finding that the offer was not bona fide and it did not come from the heart of the respondent. The totality of circumstances clearly, clinchingly and convincingly point to the correctness and acceptability of this contention. I find no reason to concur. 8. In fact, the learned Judge has taken specific note of the fact that the offer to take her to his house and her conduct of not accepting the offer was not pointedly made the subject matter of cross-examination. The learned Judge observed that such offer was not put to P.W.1 in cross-examination, “perhaps to avoid the risk”. The conclusion appears to me to be absolutely correct. In any view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned direction under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. to pay R.P.(FC) No. 88 of 2008 -: 4 :- maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem. The quantum fixed is also absolutely reasonable considering the totality of circumstances. 9. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge