IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 366 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.396/2000 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- UDAYAN, S/O KRISHNAN ASARY, NEDUMPURATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, THIRUVALLOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR POOVAPPALLY SRI.ABHISHEK RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SUNITHA, D/O SUSEELA, KOLLAMTHARA VEEDU,(SUNITHA BHAVAN), KOLLAMTHARA, PACHALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SREENATH, S/O UDAYAN(MINOR), KOLLAMTHARA VEEDU, (SUNITHA BHAVAN), KOLLAMTHARA, PACHALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SREEJITH, S/O UDAYAN(MINOR), KOLLAMTHARA VEEDU,(SUNITHA BHAVAN), KOLLAMTHARA, PACHALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (MINORS 2 & 3 IS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER, 1ST RESPT.) BY ADV..SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.9580 OF 2007 IN RPFC NO.366 OF 2007 DISMISSED 22.2.2010 SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. cl M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.366 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Trivandrum in M.C.No.396/2000. The petitioners are claiming to be the wife and children of the revision petitioner. The court below ordered maintenance to the children at the rate of Rs.500/= each from the date of petition till the date of order and at the rate of Rs.750/= each from the date of order. Challenging the very entitlement to get maintenance as well as the quantum, the revision is preferred. 2. In a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C is concerned, firstly what has to be proved is marriage and that marriage is not void at the inception. Here it is seen from the materials available that the husband himself has approached the family court for divorce from the wife. Unless there is marriage, there cannot be a petition for divorce and therefore, the question of disputing the marriage does not really arise for consideration. So, that : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.366 OF 2007 argument cannot be accepted. Secondly, the learned counsel would contend that the prayer in the petition itself was only for maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/= per month. It has to be stated that the maintenance case was filed prior to the amendment of the Cr.P.C wherein the maximum amount of maintenance that could be claimed was only Rs.500/=. Subsequently when it is amended, certainly the petitioners could have moved the court for amendment than what is prayed for and therefore I feel that leaving open the remedies to the parties under Section 127 of Cr.P.C, it is desirable to fix the maintenance at Rs.500/=. The learned counsel would contend that even Rs.500/= is on the higher side, so it has to be reduced. The revision petitioner is admittedly a Carpenter by profession and now a days it is very difficult to get the Carpenters and under the present set up further amount of Rs.500/= is the bear minimum amount that a court of law can order as maintenance to the children. 3. Therefore I dispose of the revision holding that the children are entitled to claim maintenance at the rate of : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.366 OF 2007 Rs.500/= each from the date of petition and the mother can receive the same on behalf of them. If any amount is deposited, it has to be given credit to and the balance need alone be paid by the revision petitioner. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.366 OF 2007