Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 726 (KER)

Rajavalappil Premarajan v. P. K. Pushpa

2006-10-20

R.BASANT

body2006
Judgment :- This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,200/- p.m. respectively to the claimants, admittedly his wife and minor child. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The liability to maintain the child is not disputed. The dispute on that aspect is only about the quantum fixed. The petitioner contended before the Family Court that the wife had no justification for separate residence. The wife sought to justify her separate maintenance on the assertion that the petitioner's father had misbehaved to her and had made improper passes at her. She examined herself as PW1 and the petitioner examined himself as CPW1 (the Appendix of the order does not show that). Exts.P1, P2 and X1 were marked on the side of the claimants. 3. The court below considered the offer made by the husband in detail and came to the conclusion that the claimant wife is justified in her insistence that she cannot go and reside with the petitioner either at the family house or at a house newly constructed by the petitioner close to the family house as she apprehended harm to her at the hands of her father-in-law. 4. I have been taken through the entire materials available. The court below has adverted to all the relevant inputs. The wife asserted that in view of the misbehaviour of the father-in-law, she was constrained to take up residence at her parental home and that the petitioner had acceded to that arrangement without demur. She asserted that the petitioner himself was convinced about the genuineness and truth of her grievance about her father-in-law. In these circumstances, the learned Judge of the Family Court took the view that she was justified in not returning to the family house or even to a house which the petitioner claims to have constructed subsequently close to the family house. The court took note of the prevarications of the husband on the question whether his father was really guilty of the indiscretion or not. While in one breath he said that the allegations raised against his father are not correct, he had to virtually admit that on that grievance the wife had returned to her house and he had accepted the arrangement without demur. While in one breath he said that the allegations raised against his father are not correct, he had to virtually admit that on that grievance the wife had returned to her house and he had accepted the arrangement without demur. In order to justify the conduct of his father, he even went to the extent of suggesting that his father was suffering from mental ailment, which assertion has not been substantiated at all. 5. I need only observe that the Family Court, sitting as a Court considering the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., primarily aimed at preventing vagrancy had more than justifiable reasons to come to the conclusion that the husband should pay separate maintenance to the wife. 6. It is submitted before me that a petition for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before the Family Court. It will be for the Family Court in that petition to consider exhaustively and in detail the claim of the husband that the wife should return to him to resume cohabitation in the new house constructed. No observations in the impugned order or in this order dismissing this Revision petition shall fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise appropriate contentions in the application for restitution of conjugal rights and to seek modification of the impugned order in case the Family Court in exercise of its jurisdiction as the matrimonial court directs restitution of conjugal rights. 7. Though there is a grievance that the quantum of maintenance fixed is excessive, I find no reason to interfere with that. The evidence clearly shows that the petitioner is engaging himself in a ration shop. The wife asserted that he runs the ration shop. He asserted that he is getting an amount of Rs.50/- per day. He did not adduce any evidence in support of the assertion that he is only engaged as the Manager of the ration shop. Ext.X1 proved through PW2 further indicates the truth of the assertion of PW1 that the petitioner has income as a cable operator. The counsel contends that Ext.X1 does not extend to the relevant period. It is only a past licence, it is pointed out. But that again, in the absence of a specific explanation as to how the said business was discontinued, cannot also deliver any advantage to the petitioner. The counsel contends that Ext.X1 does not extend to the relevant period. It is only a past licence, it is pointed out. But that again, in the absence of a specific explanation as to how the said business was discontinued, cannot also deliver any advantage to the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the impugned order, even reckoned as an order issued to a person, who is an able bodied person, cannot be held to be excessive or perverse as to justify invocation of the revisoinal jurisdiction of this Court of superintendence and correction. 8. In the result this revision petition is dismissed, but with the above observations.