IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 335 of 2008() ------------------------------------ MC.114/2007 of the FAMILY COURT KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... REVISION PETITIONER:RESPONDENT IN M.C.: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SAJEEV, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, CHAMMAPATHALIL HOUSE, T.P.PURAM POST, VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN MC: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. USHA M.P., W/O.SAJEEV, PERUVELIL HOUSE, KOVAPOIKA KARA, MADAPPADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. AJAY, S/O.SAJEEV, PERUVELIL HOUSE, KOVAPOIKA KARA, MADAPPADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.335 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November 2008 O R D E R This R.P.F.C is filed by the petitioner to assail a direction issued to him under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance to the claimants - admittedly his divorced wife and child to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensum each. 2. Marriage, paternity, divorce and separate residence are all admitted. That no amount of maintenance is being paid is also conceded. 3. What then is the dispute? There is a dispute raised that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. The wife has asserted on oath that she is unable to maintain herself. Following the dictum in Rajathi v. Ganesh [1999 Sessions Court 234] with that assertion on oath, the burden shifts to the petitioner/husband to prove that she is not a woman unable to maintain herself. Not a scintilla of material has been adduced before the court below in support of that contention. 4. The next contention raised before me is that the husband, admittedly a gulf returnee who claims to have sent R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 2 Rs.5,00,000/- to his wife while he was employed abroad, is at the moment impecunious and a person having no sufficient means. It is hence contended that he cannot be directed to pay any maintenance. The court below realistically took note of the fact that the petitioner, though a gulf returnee, is not shown to have any movable or immovable properties from which he could derive income. However, the learned Judge took note of the fact that reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, he is bound to pay maintenance to his wife and child. It is hence an amount of Rs.750/- per mensum has been awarded by the court. 5. Conscious of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction, I am satisfied that the impugned order does not suffer from any vice which warrants or justifies the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 6. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 3 R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008