IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 134 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.660/2007 of THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ABDUL SAMEER, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, POLICE CONSTABLE, A.COMPANY KLARI, MSP CAMP, KOZHICHENA,VALAKKULAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 57 YEARS,S/O.MOIDU, RESIDING AT PALLIKKUNNATH HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLI POST, TIRUR. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, ALONG WITH RPFC NO. 135 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C Nos.134 and 135 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008 ORDER The common petitioner in these revision petitions has suffered a common order directing him to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per mensem to his father and mother (total Rs.3,000/-). The petitioner is a police constable. He did not choose to produce any documents to show his income. He is unmarried. It is now submitted at the Bar that his total income is Rs.7,850/- for the month of January, 2008. 2. The short plea made before this Court is that the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below is excessive. In these circumstances it is prayed that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked to reduce the quantum of maintenance awarded. 3. I have considered all the relevant inputs. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded to agree that the direction to a young unmarried man to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- out of his gross salary of Rs.7,850/-, which is admitted now, can be said to be grossly excessive or perversely R.P.F.C Nos.134 and 135 of 2008 2 disproportionate to his means as to justify or warrant the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that if notice were ordered, there will be a chance of settlement of the disputes between the petitioner and his parents. The petitioner had ample time when the matter was pending before the Family Court to attempt a settlement. I am not persuaded to agree that merely for making an attempt for settlement, these revision petitions deserve admission. The petitioner can continue his attempts to settle the matter. If and when he marries, he shall be entitled to apply for modification of the quantum of maintenance awarded to his parents. 5. These Revision Petitions are, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-