Loading...

Ravi vs Cholakkapoyil Sreeja on 17 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ravi vs Cholakkapoyil Sreeja on 17 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information