IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 23 of 2008()
1. SANTHOSH KUMAR K.P., 33 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIVYA V.R., 28 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ALAN PAPALI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/02/2008
O R D E R
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/-