IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 RPFC.No. 56 of 2004() --------------------- MC.510/2002 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- PERANCHI ABOOBACKER, 34 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED @ KUNHAPPA, PERANCHI HOUSE, THAZHEKKODE P.O., (VIA) PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. ALIKKAL MYMOONA, 26 YEARS, D/O. HAMZA, ALIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHANANGADI, (VIA) ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. THASLEEM, 10 YEARS (MINOR) S/O. MYMOONA. 3. THAMEEM, 6 YEARS (MINOR), S/O. MYMOONA. 4. SHABEEBU, 6 YEARS (MINOR) S/O. MYMOONA. 5. NASLA, 4 YEARS (MINOR) D/O. MYMOONA. 6. LINSHA, 6 MONTHS (MINOR), D/O. MYMOONA. (MINOR RESPONDENTS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER/ GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.FC. No.56 of 2004 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 ORDER In this revision petition, the petitioner assails an order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.500/- per mensem to his wife-the 1st claimant and Rs.400/- per mensem each to his 5 minor children, aged between 8 years and 4 months. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. That the petitioner is employed abroad is also admitted. The wife contended that she is residing separately because of contumacious acts of cruelty on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner employed abroad in turn took up a contention that the wife is residing separately without any sufficient cause. While the 1st claimant/wife examined herself as PW1, the respondent did not examine himself; instead his brother was examined as RW1. 3. The learned Judge of the Family court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances chose to accept and act upon the evidence on oath tendered by the 1st claimant/wife that she is residing separately on account of the contumacious acts of cruelty directed against her from the R.P.FC. No.56 of 2004 2 petitioner. Accordingly the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? So far as the children are concerned, except a contention regarding the quantum of maintenance awarded, no other contention is raised at all. But so far as the wife is concerned, the contention is reiterated that she is residing separately without any sufficient cause. 5. On this aspect we have only the interested oral evidence of the claimant wife as PW1 and the interested oral evidence of the brother of the petitioner as RW1. According to the wife, the petitioner did not want to shoulder the monetary responsibilities arising from her pregnancies and child birth. She was left at the house of her parents according to her. According to the petitioner she had left on her own. Probabilities have to be taken into account. The husband had not chosen to enter the witness stand. He has not adduced any satisfactory evidence to show that the wife is residing separately without just cause or sufficient reason. We have the evidence of wife as PW1 who explained why she was constrained to live separately. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the wife is one aged about 26 R.P.FC. No.56 of 2004 3 years, married to the petitioner aged about 34 years and having 5 children aged 4 months to 8 years to look after. It is idle to assume normally that such a wife is likely to leave the husband without any sufficient reason. In fact, while the claimant/wife offers sufficient reasons to live separately, no explanation worth the salt has been offered by the husband to justify his contention that the wife is residing separately without sufficient cause. In any view of the matter I am satisfied that the discretion exercised by the learned Judge of the Family Court to choose to place reliance on the oral evidence of PW1 in preference to that of RW1 is absolutely justified and does not at any rate warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 6. The quantum of maintenance awarded is absolutely justified. Considering the nature of evidence available about the means of the petitioner, a person employed abroad and the needs of the wife and children, the maintenance awarded must be held to be absolutely reasonable and the quantum of maintenance does not at any rate warrant interference in revision at the instance of the petitioner. R.P.FC. No.56 of 2004 4 7. Though the respondents are served, there is no representation for the respondents/claimants. 8. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-