Kerala High Court
P.K.Krishnan Nair vs K.C.Janaki on 2 September, 2008
Author: R.Basant
Bench: R.Basant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 4 of 2004()
1. P.K.KRISHNAN NAIR, ASTROLOGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.C.JANAKI, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
R.P.F.C.No.4 of 2004
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of September 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner, in this R.P.F.C assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensum to the first claimant, his wife.
2. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is also conceded. There is no contention that the petitioner is not entitled for separate maintenance. There is no offer made by the petitioner to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him.
3. The only contention raised was about the quantum of maintenance payable. It was further contended that the petitioner is not a person having sufficient means. It was urged vehemently that the children of the claimant/wife are well settled in life and she can depend on them for support and maintenance. The parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. She proved Ext.P1 series which are all paper slips issued by the petitioner herein in his letter head on 26/11/2000, 06/08/2001 and 07/08/2001. They are produced R.P.F.C.No.4/04 2 to show that the petitioner herein is carrying on the activity of consultations in astrology. According to the petitioner, he is without any employment. According to the claimant, the petitioner is continuing his activity as an astrologer and is getting handsome returns. The petitioner had produced Ext.D1 series to suggest that he is ill.
4. There is nothing available in evidence to indicate that the petitioner is suffering from any such ailment that he cannot continue his activity as an astrologer. Certain answers given by the petitioner in the course of cross-examination do, according to me, clinch the issue on the question of his having sufficient means. When examined CPW1, he had admitted that he is a well known astrologer at Thaliparamba. He had received the titles of Jyothishathilakam and Daivanjarathnam. His competence in astrology is not disputed though it is asserted that he does not have the physical health to engage himself in such work. Ext.P1 series show that they are written on a letter head showing the credentials of the petitioner and the same were printed only in 2000. If the petitioner were not carrying on the activity as astrologer, it is rather difficult to assume that such R.P.F.C.No.4/04 3 letter heads were printed and kept for any other purpose. In fact, those three slips regarding astrological consultations were issued in 2000 and 2001, the petition having been filed in 2003. The evidence of the petitioner further shows that he was teaching astrology to students. His evidence further indicates that he had affixed a board showing himself as an astrologer in front of his house and on the way near his house as also at the Seventh Mile.
5. The available materials knock the bottom out of the contention of the petitioner that he is not having sufficient means and is not employed. The quantum of maintenance awarded is only Rs.500/- per mensum. It may be true that the available indications suggest that the claimants children are employed and she is living with them. The mere fact that her children may also support her is no reason to non-suit her in the claim for maintenance against her husband. Primarily, it is the husband having means who must pay maintenance to the wife, though, pressed to the wall she may also claim against her children. In these circumstances, possibility of her children contributing something to her maintenance may or can only R.P.F.C.No.4/04 4 affect the determination of the quantum and cannot, at any rate, nullify her claim against her husband/the petitioner herein.
6. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order warrants interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below does appear to me to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just considering the materials available about the means of the petitioner and the needs of the first claimant.
7. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.4/04 5 R.P.F.C.No.4/04 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008