IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 169 of 2008()
1. M.ASHRAF, S/O.T.P.MOHAMMED KOYA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HAIRUNNEESA.K.P., D/O.USMAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
R.P.F.C. No.169 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner in this R.P.F.C challenges a direction issued to him
under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per
mensem to the claimant, admittedly his wife. Acrimony between
the spouses has a history. In 1993, the wife and child had
claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The claim of the
child was allowed, but the claim of the wife was turned down.
That order was not challenged by the wife. But admittedly parties
resumed cohabitation and lived together for a period of about 10
years. It is the case of the wife that the spouses had cohabited in
the house of the wife and they used to make occasional visits to
the house of the petitioner/husband. It is the case of the wife that
the petitioner stopped visiting her and did not maintain her
thereafter. She hence claimed maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner took up a plea that the spouses were
living together at his house and it was the claimant/wife who,
without valid reason, withdrew from the house of the petitioner
and started separate residence. According to him she was not
R.P.F.C. No.169 of 2008 2
justified in withdrawing from his company and residing at her
house.
3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The
claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. A fairly grown up child of
the spouses, the only child, was examined as PW2. Pws 1 and 2
asserted that they were always residing in the house of PW1 and
they only used to make occasional visits to the house of the
petitioner. The petitioner as RW1 asserted that they were
residing in his house contrary to the evidence of Pws 1 and 2. He
admitted that in the ration card etc. the claimants are not shown
as residing along with him at his house. No better evidence was
adduced by either side.
4. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in the facts and
circumstances, came to the conclusion that the cohabitation was
always in the house of PW1 and that it is not correct to contend
that they were residing in the house of the petitioner and that the
claimant/wife had unjustifiably withdrawn from the company of
the husband. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge took
the view that the wife is entitled for maintenance. Considering
the evidence available about the means of the petitioner, the
quantum was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per mensem.
R.P.F.C. No.169 of 2008 3
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the
impugned order on the ground that separate maintenance should
not have been awarded to the claimant/wife. He asserts that it
was the wife who had unjustifiably withdrawn from the company
of the petitioner. In the nature of evidence that is available from
Pws 1 and 2 on the one hand and RW1 on the other and the
compelling circumstance that even the ration card will not show
that Pws 1 and 2 are residing along with the petitioner at his
house, I am unable to find any vice in the findings of fact
rendered by the learned Judge of the Family Court which can
persuade this Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of
superintendence and correction. The quantum of maintenance
awarded is modest, reasonable, fair and just. The impugned
order does not, in these circumstances, warrant interference.
6. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-