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. 299 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.87/2006 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... : PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- ANSALAN.K.M @ ANSAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KURIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHANGAD, EDAVANAKKAD.P.O, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV K.S RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STELLA, D/O.V.C.PAPPU, AGED 34 YEARS, VADAKATH VEETTIL, PUTHUVYPPU P.O, OCHANTHURUTHU DESOM, VYPPIN, KOCHI TALUK. 2. STENY, D/O.ANSALAN.K.M, AGED 5 1/2 YRS,R RESIDING AT -DO-REP.BY MOTHER STELLA. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR 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.299 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 ORDER Petitioner assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay maintenance to his child @ Rs.1,000/- per mensem. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is also conceded. The wife did not claim maintenance. It is submitted that there has been divorce. The petitioner's liability to pay maintenance to the child is not disputed. Two contentions appear to have been raised. It was contended that an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid by the petitioner when he was employed abroad towards the maintenance of the child. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced on this aspect. The counsel contends before me that there is an admission in the petition filed that such amount has been paid. The alleged admission has been read over to me. There is no semblance of an averment to show that any amount was paid towards the maintenance of the child/claimant herein. R.P.F.C. No.299 of 2008 2 3. It is next contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The petitioner claims to be only a coolie. I will take him as a coolie alone. Even then the amount of maintenance ordered to be paid - Rs.1,000/- per mensem, to the petitioner's child by the petitioner, who has no liability to pay any maintenance to his wife, cannot be said to be excessive or perverse as to justify invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- /true copy/ P.A to Judge