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. 365 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.215/2008 of Family Court, Kottarakkara .................... REVISION PETITIONER -------------------- K.JOHN, S/O. KUNCHANDY, AGED 54. KANJIRAMVILA PADINJATTATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, VALAKOM MURI, VALAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KUNCHANDY, W/O. MATHAI, AGED 80, KANJIRAMVILA, PADINJATTATHIL PUTEHN VEEDU, VALAKOM MURI, VALAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. NOW RESIDING AT PULLAMPALLIL VEEDU, KAKKUDUMON, RANNI VILLAGE. 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.365 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this R.P.F.C challenges an interim direction for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per mensum to the claimant, who is none other than his father aged 80 years. 2. Relationship is not disputed. Admittedly, the father had given him 2 and ¼ acres of yielding rubber estate and he is enjoying the same. He is a Government servant and gets an income of Rs.12,000/- per mensum. He owns two houses also. The claimant/father is aged about 80 years. He has now taken shelter in the house of a daughter of his. Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C was claimed. The petitioner admitted the liability and claimed that he was paying an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensum. The learned Judge of the Family Court after adverting to the totality of the circumstances came to the conclusion that the petitioner must be mulcted with the liability to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensum as interim maintenance. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 2 2. What is the grievance? The short contention is that the quantum fixed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is excessive. The learned Judge has adverted to all the relevant inputs. I am not persuaded to agree that any such gross error or perversity has been committed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in fixing the quantum of monthly maintenance payable as to justify invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The totality of the circumstances eminently point to the reasonableness and justness of the order impugned. I am not persuaded to agree that this revision petition deserves favourable consideration. 3. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed but with the specific observation that the learned Judge of the Family Court must make every endeavour now to expeditiously dispose of M.C.No.215/2008 - at any rate within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this order is placed before the learned Judge. 4. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge 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