IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 212 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.682/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------- SURESH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KANNUR VALAPPIL, MELEPPURA, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKUMAR.G.( CHELLUR) SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------- SATYABHAMA, W/O.SURESH, KALLINGAL, PARASSERY, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.212 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the Family Court obliging him to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensem as maintenance to his wife, admittedly a woman afflicted with T.B. 2. The only zone of dispute is the quantum of maintenance awarded. Marriage and separate residence are admitted. There is no serious contention that the wife is refusing to live with the petitioner without sufficient cause. The only dispute hence was only the quantum of maintenance that is liable to pay. 3. That the claimant is afflicted with T.B is admitted. It is admitted that the claimant needs and requires an amount of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per mensem for her treatment. In these circumstances the direction to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensem as maintenance cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be unjustified by the materials available about her needs. R.P.F.C. No.212 of 2008 2 4. We now come to the question of means of the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner was employed as a head load worker and used to get an income of Rs.500/- per day. According to the claimant, the petitioner continues with that employment. 5. But according to the petitioner he has left that employment and is now earning only an amount of Rs.125/- per day - in some scheme offered by the Panchayat. Why did the petitioner, who was getting an income of Rs.500/- per day, choose to be satisfied with an employment which fetches him only Rs.125/- per day ? No reasonable and satisfactory explanation is offered. The learned Judge of the Family Court in these circumstances came to the conclusion that the version of PW1 about the income of the claimant can be preferred to the self serving improbable evidence of the petitioner as RW1. Accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The only grievance urged is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. In the nature of the materials presently R.P.F.C. No.212 of 2008 3 available, I am not at all persuaded to agree that the impugned order warrants any interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a further opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to adduce further evidence. I am considering the question in revision. Even in an appeal where the jurisdiction or the appellate court is coterminus with that of a trial court, satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist as to why the necessary documents have not been produced before the trial court. I find no reason whatsoever justifying the granting of the luxury of a further opportunity to the petitioner to adduce further evidence in the facts and circumstances of this case. I am not persuaded to agree that any such further opportunity deserves to be granted. 8. Thus going by the materials presently available, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 9. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- R.P.F.C. No.212 of 2008 4