IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 337 of 2008()
1. YOOSUF, S/O.KUNHEETHUTTY, PUTHUKIDI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JAMEELA.V.K., AGED 21 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. MUHAMED LUBAB, AGED 2 YEARS,
3. AJEER, AGED 6 MONTHS, S/O.YOOSUF(MINOR)
4. NAJEER, AGED 6 MONTHS,
For Petitioner :SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
R.P.F.C.No.337 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of November 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner has come to this court with this R.P.F.C to
assail an order directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of
Rs.1,000/- to his wife and Rs.500/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.300/- to his
three children per mensum. Marriage, paternity and separate
residence are all admitted. There is an offer to maintain the wife
on condition that she lives with him. The wife spurned that offer
on the ground that the husband is guilty of physical and mental
cruelty against her. On this crucial aspect there is only the
evidence of the claimant/wife against the evidence of the
petitioner on oath. The learned Judge of the Family Court
evaluated the evidence and assessed the evidence for its intrinsic
worth as also on broad probabilities. The court came to the
conclusion that the young wife aged 22 years is residing
separately from her husband aged 28 years showing specific
grounds for such separate residence. On broad probabilities, the
learned Judge felt that it is unlikely that the wife with three
infant children would reside separately from her husband without
R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 2
valid reasons. She offered a specific reason whereas the
husband was not able to offer a specific reason. Prosecution
under Section 498A I.P.C also was pending against the
petitioner. On broad probabilities the learned Judge preferred
to accept the evidence of the claimant/wife as RW1 to that of the
petitioner as PW1. The learned Judge, in these circumstances,
proceeded to hold that the wife is entitled to separate
maintenance and she has just ground and sufficient reasons to
insist a separate residence.
2. Conscious of the nature, quality and contours of the
jurisdiction of this court, I find absolutely no reason to invoke the
revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to
interfere with the preference shown by the learned Judge to
accept and act upon the oral evidence of the claimant/wife in
preference to that of the petitioner/husband.
3. Finally a contention is strenuously urged that the
quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. Less said about
this contention the better. Amounts awarded as indicated earlier
is Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.300/- respectively for the
maintenance of four souls. A total amount of Rs,2,100/- alone is
R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 3
awarded. The petitioner, on his admission, is a concrete c
(construction) worker. The learned Judge took the view that in
any view of the matter the petitioner must be getting an income
of Rs.200/- per day.
4. Adopt the most lenient standards, I am satisfied that
the quantum fixed by the court below does not at all warrant
interference. Going by the materials available about the needs
of the claimants or the means of the petitioner, the quantum
fixed does not warrant revisional interference.
5. This R.P.F.C. is in these circumstances dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 4
R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 5
R.BASANT, J
R.P.F.C.No.
ORDER
11/02/2008