IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 36 of 2009() --------------------- M.C.No.210/2007 of Family Court, Kozhikode REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------- VINAYAN, S/O. KALLIYAN, ENNAKALTHIL HOUSE, ARIYALLOOR.P.O, VALLIKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- V. BINDU, D/O. AYYAPPAN, CHETTIYAMBALATH VEEDU, FEROKE COLLEGE.P.O, KOZHIKODE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.36 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January 2009 O R D E R In this revision petition, the petitioner assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensum to the claimant, admittedly his wife. Past and future maintenance was claimed. In O.P.No.454/07, which was disposed of by a common order, past maintenance was awarded at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensum. That direction is not challenged admittedly. The same has become final. 2. The petitioner, who admitted marriage, contended that his wife was residing separately without any sufficient cause. The wife was willing to go and live with him; but he was not willing to take her back. The only allegation raised by him is that she is picking up quarrel even for silly matters. The learned Judge of the Family Court chose to place reliance on the evidence of PW1 in preference to that of RW1. The court took note of the fact that the claimant/wife is not employed and the petitioner is employed in the Fisheries Department. It was, in these circumstances, that the impugned order was passed. R.P.F.C.No. 36/09 :2: 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? The only contention raised is that the wife is residing separately without any sufficient reason. She had offered to go and live with him. It is the petitioner who is unwilling to allow her to join him. In paragraph 11, these aspects are adverted to by the learned Judge of the Family Court. In these circumstances, the contention falls to the ground. The quantum of maintenance awarded is only Rs.1,000- per mensum. Even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, the quantum fixed does appear to me to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. The quantum fixed does not warrant interference at all. No other contentions are raised. 4. In the result, this R.P.F.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008