IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 190 of 2008()
1. MAHESH GOPI, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PRIYA K.R., D/O MR. K.RMACHANDRAN,
... Respondent
2. MASTER GAUTHAM - MINOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/06/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
R.P.F.C. No.190 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008
ORDER
This revision is directed against an order passed under
Section 125 Cr.P.C making the petitioner to pay maintenance to
his wife and child @ Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively.
2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is conceded. Separate
residence is also not disputed. The wife asserted that she is living
separately on account of matrimonial cruelty. The husband in
turn made an offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives
with him. The wife was admittedly residing earlier along with her
child in Mumbai where the petitioner is well employed and
receiving a very handsome income.
3. On the question about the sufficient cause advanced
by the wife to justify her separate residence there was only oath
against oath tendered by the 1st claimant/wife and the
petitioner/husband. The learned Judge took note of various other
relevant inputs also to come to the conclusion that the oral
evidence of PW1, the claimant/wife deserves to be preferred to
that of the petitioner/husband. The learned Judge took note of
the fact that no satisfactory reason is urged by the husband to
R.P.F.C. No.190 of 2008 2
justify separate residence. Though he alleged that friends of the
claimant/wife were prevailing upon her and prompting her to take
up such separate residence, he was not even able to name those
friends who were resorting to such improbable conduct. The
learned Judge took note of Exts.D1 and D2 letters sent by the wife
to support the case of the wife in her oral evidence that she was
residing separately for valid reasons. Those letters were written
at a time when the dispute between the parties had not arisen
and the learned Judge took note of the contents of those letters to
support her claim for separate residence. The oral evidence of
PW1 was assessed and evaluated for its intrinsic worth and also
on broad probabilities by the learned Judge of the Family Court to
conclude that the reasons advanced by the wife were true and
justified.
4. Above all, the learned Judge took note of the fact that
there is no bona fide offer to maintain the wife on condition that
she lives with him. The husband did not show the courtesy of
appearing before the counselor when attempts were made by the
court to persuade the parties to resume cohabitation. That
conduct of his was reckoned as relevant input to show the
absence of bona fide in the offer made by him to maintain the
wife on condition that she lives with him.
R.P.F.C. No.190 of 2008 3
5. Having considered all the relevant inputs available, I
am not persuaded to agree that there is any valid or justifiable
reason which can persuade this Court to invoke the revisional
jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the
impugned order on that aspect.
6. The only other ground of challenge is about the
quantum of maintenance fixed. The wife and the child are
certainly entitled to live in the same life style in which they could
have aspired if they were living with the husband/father. The
learned Judge relied on the admitted stand taken by the petitioner
in the light of Exts.D3, D4, D5 and D6 which show that the
petitioner was getting an income ranging from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.10
lakhs per annum. In these circumstances the direction to pay
maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per mensem
respectively to the wife and the child does not also warrant
revisional interference. At any rate, revisional interference at the
instance of the petitioner is not warranted at all.
7. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-