IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 361 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.337/2003 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- K.P.SATHEESH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. LATE PAVITHRAN,KARIMADATH THUNDAYIL HOUSE, NEAR POLICE STATION, CHERANELLOORE P.O. EDAPPALLY. BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. RAJANI,AGED 29 YEARS,W/O. K.P.SATHEESH, VELLEPARAMBIL HOUSE,NEDUNGAD P.O., NAYARAMBALAM. 2. VIMAL ROOP, AGED 6 YEARS, S/O.K.P.SATHEESH, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER RAJANI,VELLEPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUNGAD P.O.,NAYARAMBALAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.K.B.SUJAI KUMAR SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.361 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who has been directed by the impugned order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, to pay maintenance @ Rs.500/- per mensem to the claimants - his wife and child. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. The husband admittedly is not willing to resume cohabitation. He had filed an application for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that the wife was suffering from insanity at the time of marriage. That petition is pending before the Family Court. 3. The claimants staked the claim for maintenance on the ground that the petitioner is refusing and neglecting to maintain them. Before the Family Court in this proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C also, the petitioner reiterated his contention that the marriage is null and void and the 1st claimant/wife was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of marriage. R.P.F.C. No.361 of 2007 2 4. Be that as it may, marriage is admitted. Solemnization of the marriage is conceded. The parties are already before the Family Court in a proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriage. It is unnecessary to hazard an opinion about the validity of the marriage - solemnization having already been admitted unambiguously. 5. In these circumstances, it need only be said that depending upon the outcome of the proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriage, the parties shall be entitled to approach the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C for modification of the impugned order directing payment of maintenance. Viewed from any angle, I am satisfied that, the impugned order does not warrant interference. Liability is established clearly. The quantum of maintenance awarded is most reasonable even reckoning the petitioner herein as just an able bodied person. 6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-