IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 107 of 2008 ------------------------------- (M.C.NO46/2006 FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------------- MOIDEEN @ UNNI PAKKATH HOUSE, KUDALLUR AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD), ADV. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. SULAIKHA, D/O. POKKAR THEKKE PEEDIYAKKAL, KUDALLUR AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. NASHIDA (MINOR), D/O. SULAIKHA, 2ND RESPONDENT REPRESENTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AS GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND. ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR FOR R1 & R2, ADV. SRI.P.TSHAHUL HAMEED FOR R1 & R2. THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.107 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July 2008 O R D E R In this R.P.F.C the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Family Court obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensum to the claimant allegedly his illegitimate child. 2. The petitioner disputed paternity. There was an assertion on the part of the wife/mother of the claimant/child as PW1 as against the assertions of the petitioner. To tilt the scales the claimant relied on Ext.C1 which shows that the scientific test of DNA finger printing had revealed that the petitioner is the biological father of the claimant/child. The learned Judge of the Family Court in these circumstances proceeded to issue the impugned direction to pay an amount of Rs.750/- per mensum as maintenance to the claimant. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order. What is the grievance? According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. No other contention is raised. 4. Admittedly the petitioner was employed as a cook. According to the claimant he gets an income of Rs.300/- per day. R.P.F.C.No.107/08 2 According to the petitioner, though he was a cook earlier, he now has no employment. Why is he not employed? The assertion is that the petitioner is sick and therefore he is unable to continue his employment. He is shown to be a person aged about 46 years. It is up to him to show that at this stage he is suffering from such ailments which make it impossible for him to continue his employment as a cook. No worthwhile material has been placed except the self-serving testimony of RW1 in support of his assertion that he suffers from any such ailment which makes it difficult or impossible for him to work and earn his livelihood. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has a legitimate wife and three legitimate children also looking for his support. The amount awarded is only Rs.750/- per mensum and in any view of the matter I am not persuaded to agree that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction can, ought or deserves to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case to interfere with the impugned order. 5. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.107/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.107/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008