IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 47 of 2008() --------------------- MC.159/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ SURENDRAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, MOOTHEDATHU HOUSE, PARIYARAM KARA, PUTHUPALLY VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT NIRMALLIYAM VEEDU, MOOTHEDATHU, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK, REP. BY HIS P/A HOLDER SATHEEDEVI M.N., MOOTHEDATHU HOUSE, CHAMPAKARA PO.,KARUKACHAL,KTYM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------ 1. SANTHI.V.S., W/O.SURENDRAN NAIR, SUSEELA BHAVAN, POIKAYIL, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.F.C. No. 47 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a direction under section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to the claimant, admittedly the wife of the petitioner herein. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. There are two children in the wedlock. The children are residing in the house of the petitioner. The wife alone is residing separately. The petitioner admittedly is none employed abroad. He was earlier employed abroad. He had come to India for some period of time. He was having a business. He has later returned to the Gulf. 3. The wife contended that she is living separately for valid reason. The petitioner was allegedly keeping a mistress and that was held out by the wife as the reason for separate R.P.F.C.47/08No. : 2 : residence. 4. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he had no specific reason to advance as to why the claimant wife is residing separately from him. Even in his absence in India, the claimant was residing away from her husband and away from her children. There was another contention that the claimant wife is not a person unable to maintain herself. She is allegedly earning income by giving private tuition to the students, it is contended. 5. The claimant wife examined herself as PW1. She proved Exts.A1 to A4. They are documents to prove marriage as also to support her claim that she is ill and is undergoing treatment. The petitioner did not examine himself as a witness. He chose to place in the witness stand the daughter of the petitioner and the claimant, a young girl aged less than 18 years. In the course of her examination, she admitted that she is aware of a lady by name Lesly. It was with this woman that the petitioner was allegedly having illicit relationship. The R.P.F.C.47/08No. : 3 : petitioner had disclaimed any knowledge about such a living soul. 6. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered the materials available and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to the claimant. Accordingly, the impugned direction was issued. 7. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits first of all that the claimant wife is not a person unable to maintain herself and she is earning income by way of private tuition. PW1 denied the contention. There is not a semblance of evidence to establish this contention. 8. The next contention is that the wife is residing separately without sufficient cause. We have only the evidence of PW1 on this aspect. She advanced her reason to justify her separate residence. The petitioner, on the contrary, R.P.F.C.47/08No. : 4 : feigned ignorance about any reason as to why his wife is living separately. Probabilities have to be assessed. Claim is for separate residence. PW1 has advanced a probable reason. But the petitioner is not able to offer any reason to explain the separate residence. The evidence of PW1 shows and the evidence of RW1 probabilises the allegation that the petitioner was living in contumacious intimacy with another woman. The probabilities are loaded in favour of PW1. She is unlikely to reside away from her children unless there be a specific reason. 9. The finding that the wife is entitled for separate maintenance, it appears to me is cogent and reasonable and the same does not at any rate warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 10. Lastly, it is contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The petitioner has been employed abroad a long period of time. Even now he is R.P.F.C.47/08No. : 5 : employed abroad. The wife has not produced any tangible evidence to prove his income. Her inability to produce documentary evidence is quite understandable. The petitioner has not let in any evidence to show his income. Even as an able bodied person, he is liable to work and earn his livelihood and also support his wife. In any view of the matter, the amount of Rs.1,500/- directed to be paid does not warrant interference. If the quantum suffers any inadequacy/error it is only that it is not adequate and is not consistent with the materials available about the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimant. Be that as it may, in the absence of any challenge by the claimant wife, I am not embarking on a more detailed discussion on that aspect in this revision petition. This revision petition filed by the petitioner is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks