IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 88 of 2008()
1. K.V.SAJEEV, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOLAKKATTIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANOMANI, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.ANDAVAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :31/03/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
R.P.(FC) No. 88 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against an order passed
under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner herein to
pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem as maintenance to the
claimant – his wife.
2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also
conceded. The wife contended that she is forced to reside
separately because of the matrimonial cruelty inflicted on her.
The husband took up a contention that he is willing to maintain
his wife on condition that she lives with him.
3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The
claimant examined herself as P.W.1 The petitioner examined
himself as R.W.1. No other evidence whatsoever was adduced.
4. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious
R.P.(FC) No. 88 of 2008 -: 2 :-
consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion
that the claimant was justified in residing separately. All the
relevant circumstances were adverted to in detail by the learned
Judge to come to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to
insist on separate residence. The learned Judge, in particular,
entered the specific finding that “the offer made was not bona
fide and it did not come from the heart of the respondent.” It is
accordingly that the learned Judge proceeded to pass the
impugned order with the direction to pay an amount of
Rs.1,000/- per mensem as maintenance to the claimant.
5. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
order. What is the grievance? The petitioner raises a contention
that the learned Judge had erred grossly in coming to the
conclusion that the wife is entitled for separate residence.
6. I have considered this petition in detail. I must alertly
remind myself the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction
of this Court sitting as a court of revision exercising correctional
and supervisory jurisdiction. Unless the findings of fact entered
into by the court below are grossly erroneous or perverse and
R.P.(FC) No. 88 of 2008 -: 3 :-
such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage of justice, this Court shall
not ordinarily invoke its revisional jurisdiction of
superintendence and correction. An alert trial court has a
significant advantage in the matter of appreciation of evidence
as it sees for itself the witnesses tendering evidence before it.
7. Having considered the entire materials available, the
court below had entered a specific finding that the offer was not
bona fide and it did not come from the heart of the respondent.
The totality of circumstances clearly, clinchingly and
convincingly point to the correctness and acceptability of this
contention. I find no reason to concur.
8. In fact, the learned Judge has taken specific note of the
fact that the offer to take her to his house and her conduct of not
accepting the offer was not pointedly made the subject matter of
cross-examination. The learned Judge observed that such offer
was not put to P.W.1 in cross-examination, “perhaps to avoid the
risk”. The conclusion appears to me to be absolutely correct.
In any view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the
impugned direction under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. to pay
R.P.(FC) No. 88 of 2008 -: 4 :-
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem. The
quantum fixed is also absolutely reasonable considering the
totality of circumstances.
9. This revision petition is, in these circumstances,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge