IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 106 of 2004()
1. RAVI, S/O.CHINNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHOLAKKAPOYIL SREEJA, D/O.C.P.VELU,
... Respondent
2. SREEJITH (MINOR), S/O.RAVI,
3. ANJALI, (MINOR), D/O.RAVI,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
For Respondent :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-----------------------------------------------
R.P.(FC). No. 106 OF 2004
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
Petitioner assails a direction issued to him under Section
125 Cr.P.C to pay an amount of Rs.500/-, Rs.400/- and Rs.400/-
respectively to his wife and two minor children aged 5= and 2
years on the date of the petition.
2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate
residence is accepted. The petitioner took a plea that the claimant
had gone away from his house without any justifiable reason. The
claimant wife examined herself as PW1. The petitioner
examined himself as RW1. A witness was examined as RW2 in
support of the theory that PW1 had left on her account to her
residence taking the two children with her. Only Ext.P1, copy of
the registered notice sent by the petitioner calling upon PW1 to
resume cohabitation, was marked.
3. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious
consideration of all the relevant inputs found the evidence of PW1
more appealing and inspiring. She had alleged specific reasons
that obliged her to reside separately. Even going by the evidence
R.P.(FC). No. 106 OF 2004
2
of RW2, the spouses were living separately and there were
disputes between them. Therefore, the only question to be
decided was whether the evidence of PW1 is to be preferred to
that of RW1. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an
evaluation of all the circumstances in paragraph 11 opined that
when all circumstances are considered, it is unlikely that the
claimant would have left the matrimonial home without the consent
or knowledge of the respondent. The learned Judge did not
accept the theory advanced by the petitioner that the claimant/wife
had left the house as she was not willing to look after the aged
parents of the petitioner. Claimant wife is found to be facing
financial difficulties and it is very unlikely that such a woman would
leave the safety and security of the matrimonial home to take up
separate residence.
4. I am called upon to invoke the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I am not
persuaded to agree that such jurisdiction can be invoked in the
facts and circumstances of this case. The preference shown by
the learned Judge of the Family Court to accept and act upon the
R.P.(FC). No. 106 OF 2004
3
evidence of PW1 over that of RW1 and RW2, does appear to me
to be absolutely justified. Quantum of maintenance awarded is
also found to be absolutely reasonable, considering the probative
inputs available about the needs of the claimant and the means of
the petitioner herein. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that
this RP(FC) does not deserve to be allowed. This petition is
accordingly dismissed.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb
R.P.(FC). No. 106 OF 2004
4
R.P.(FC). No. 106 OF 2004
5