IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 301 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.661/2006 of Family Court, Palakkad .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETTIONER ------------------------------------------------------ SIDDHIQUE, 45 YEARS, S/O. MODIEEN, PALLATHUVALAPPIL VEEDU, PAZHAYA LAKKIDI, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SUHARA, 29 YEARS, D/O. SAITHALI, TTHOTTINPALLA VEEDU, PAZHAMBALAKODE, THARUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 2. SULFIYATH, 11 YEARS, D/O. SUHARA. 3. SUMIYATH, 10 YEARS, D/O. SUHARA. 4. MOIDEEN, 9 YEARS, S/O. SUHARA 5. SAHITHA, 6 YEARS, D/O. SUHARA RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, THEIR MOTHER. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.301 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th 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 obliging him to pay maintenance to his wife aged 29 years and 4 minor children aged 11 years,10 years, 9 years and 6 years at the rate of Rs.700/-, Rs.400/-, Rs.300/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.300/- respectively. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is admitted. There is no contention before me that the petitioner is not liable to pay separate maintenance for the wife. Only contention raised before me is that the quantum of maintenance fixed is grossly excessive and perversely disproportionate to the means of the petitioner. The petitioner is obliged to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensum. In any view of the matter, the petitioner is unable to pay such huge amounts to the claimants, it is submitted. 3. Going by the needs of the claimants, the amounts awarded must certainly be held to be too meager to keep their body and soul together. The only question is whether considering the means of the petitioner, the amount awarded is R.P.F.C.No.301/08 2 excessive. The claimants have contended that the petitioner is a business man and earns a total income of Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner stoutly resisted that contention and asserted that he is only a coolie. He further proceeded to contend that he is a coolie who gets only Rs.75/- per day and that he works only for 10 to 15 days a month. The court below sailed with the petitioner and assumed that he is only a daily labourer and held that even if it be so, he must be getting about Rs.200/- per day as daily wages. He must work all the six days in a week and in this view of the matter he must atleast be getting an amount of Rs.4,000/- per mensum, it was held. Half of that amount was directed to pay to all the claimants. I shall assume for the sake of arguments that the petitioner does not get Rs.4,000/- per mensum and only getting Rs.3,000/- per mensum. Even then the direction to pay Rs.2,000/- per mensum to the claimants leaving the petitioner to enjoy an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensum must be held to be absolutely reasonable and just and the same does not warrant interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. This R.P.F.C is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.301/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.301/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008