IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 21 of 2003()
1. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUHRA D/O.IBRAHIM
... Respondent
2. NAJIYA NAZRIN, 4 YEARS (MINOR)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
R.P.(FC) No. 21 of 2003
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against an order passed
under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- respectively to the claimants
– his wife and child.
2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all
admitted. It is also admitted now before me that during the
pendency of this revision, the 1st claimant – wife, has been
divorced by the petitioner. The claim for maintenance was
resisted on the ground that the wife is residing separately
without sufficient cause. On this aspect, the claimant – wife,
and the petitioner tendered evidence as P.W.1 and R.W.1. The
learned Judge of the Family Court on the evidence placed
before court preferred to accept and act upon the evidence of
R.P.F.C.No. 21 of 2003 -: 2 :-
P.W.1 which rhymed with probabilities better. The version of
the petitioner as R.W.1 was not accepted by the learned Judge of
the Family Court.
2. Though specific evidence about the actual income of the
petitioner was not placed before the learned Judge, the learned
Judge took note of all the probabilities and the evidence of P.W.1
and R.W.1 and came to the conclusion that even as an able
bodied person the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to his
wife and child. The quantum was fixed at Rs.1,000/- and
Rs.750/- respectively.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the
reason? Two grounds are urged. Firstly, it is contended that
the court below erred in taking the view that the claim of the
wife for separate maintenance is justified. The question is now
relevant only from the date of the petition to the date of divorce.
Even the fact that the petitioner is admittedly divorced pending
the proceedings adds to the probabilities of the case in favour of
P.W.1. In any view of the matter, I am of opinion that the court
below has committed no error in choosing to prefer the evidence
of P.W.1 to that of R.W.1. On probabilities the version of P.W.1
definitely rhymes better and commends itself for acceptance.
R.P.F.C.No. 21 of 2003 -: 3 :-
4. The only other question that remains is about the
quantum of monthly maintenance. The petitioner is a young
man aged about 28 years. There were assertions and counter
assertions about the nature of his employment and the income
earned therefrom. Even accepting that the petitioner was only
an able bodied person who is in law obliged to work, earn his
livelihood and support his wife and child, I am satisfied that the
quantum of maintenance awarded cannot be said to be so grossly
excessive or inconsistent with the materials available as to justify
the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence
and correction.
5. This petition, in these circumstances, deserves to be and
is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge