IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 23 of 2008() --------------------- MC.700/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR K.P., 33 YEARS, S/O.P.SUBRAMANIAN NAMBIAR, "SURABHI" NEAR M.S.P.HOSPITAL, MALAPPURAM AMSOM DESOM, ERNADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- DIVYA V.R., 28 YEARS, D/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR.V., NEAR KARUVACHERI VENGASSERI, 'DIVYA SREE', THALIAMBALAM, ANGADIPURAM AMSOM & DESOM, P.O.ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.(C).No.23 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against a direction under Section 125 Cr.P.C to the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per mensem from the date of filing of the M.C to the claimant, allegedly, his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. The petitioner admittedly refuses to permit the claimant to reside with him. He had already moved for divorce. That petition was dismissed. The claimant/wife had offered to live with the petitioner and she had filed an application for restoration of conjugal rights, which application has been allowed by the common order, in which the direction to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is also there. 3. What then is the contention ? The claimant/wife asserted that she is without any employment though she was admittedly employed earlier. The petitioner is employed abroad. Notwithstanding his plea denying the nature of his employment and the income earned therefrom, the court below came to the R.P.F.(C).No.23 of 2008 2 conclusion that the claimant/wife is not shown to have any employment and is hence a person unable to maintain herself. The court found that there was sufficient indications to conclude that the petitioner, who, on his own showing makes repeated trips, is employed abroad and is having sufficient income. It is in this context that the learned Judge proceeded to direct payment of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per men sem. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the ground of challenge ? The learned counsel for the petitioner only contends that the claimant cannot in the facts and circumstances of this case be held to be a woman unable to maintain herself. The reliance placed by the learned Judge in the dictum in Muralidharan v. Vijayalakshmi [2006(3) KLT 635] is unjustified, it is contended. 5. On the materials available, there can be no dispute that the claimant/wife was at the relevant period of time unemployed. There is no contra evidence also. Of course the possibility of her securing employment, she having sufficient qualification, cannot be ruled out. But the fact remains that the evidence on record shows that she was at the relevant period of time not employed. I am of opinion that there is nothing to R.P.F.(C).No.23 of 2008 3 conclude that the claimant was refusing to get employed or that she was suppressing any employment which she has. In these circumstances, to me, it appears that the conclusion of the learned Judge of the Family Court that the claimant is unable to maintain herself is absolutely correct and justified and does not at any rate justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 6. The quantum of maintenance awarded - at the rate Rs.5,000/- per mensem is found to be absolutely sustainable and consistant with the materials available about the needs of the claimant and the means of the petitioner herein. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this Revision Petition only deserves to be dismissed. 7. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that if the claimant later receives any employment, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move for modification/alteration of the order passed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) R.P.F.(C).No.23 of 2008 4 rtr/-