IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 336 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.710/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT : -------------------- C.K.SIVAKUMAR S/O.KUNCHUMANI CHEMMANIKARAKALAM, KULAVARAMBU PALLASSANA PO., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. KOWSALYA, D/O.VELAYUDHAN, ANUMAPURAM, POIKKARA PO., NILAGIRI , TAMIL NADU 2. RITHIN MINOR) S/O.C.K.SIVAKUMAR REP. BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER KOWSALYA, DO.DO. 3. RITHIKA (MINOR) D/O.C.K.SIVAKUMAR, REP. BY NEXT FRIEND MOTHER KOUSALYA, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 336 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. each to the claimants, admittedly his wife and two minor children. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. The husband had filed a petition for divorce and significantly there is no reasonable and bonafide offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. The only question which therefore survives for consideration is whether the wife is unable to maintain herself. So far as the children are concerned, they are admittedly unable to maintain themselves. 3. The wife, in the course of her examination, admitted that she is now taking tuition for children and is getting Rs.2,000/- p.m. with which she was meeting the expenses of herself and her children, the husband having not chosen to make any payment for maintenance. The petitioner is a goldsmith and R.P.F.C.No. 336 of 2008 2 even admittedly he undertakes work in gold ornaments and hands over them to jewelleries. According to the wife, he gets an income of Rs.9,000/- p.m., whereas according to him, he gets only an income of Rs.2,000/- p.m. The court below rightly relied of Rajathi v. C.Ganeshan (AIR 1999 SC 2374) and came to the conclusion that the endeavour by the wife to keep the body and soul together after the spouses started separate residence cannot take her away from the category of persons, who are unable to maintain themselves. Even assuming that she gets some income from her engagement as a tuition teacher, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded does not warrant interference at all. An amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. alone has been granted to the wife and the two children. Taking a realistic view of the evidence available about the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimants, including the meager income which the wife earns from giving tuition to the students, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance does not warrant interference. 4. This revision petition is hence dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge R.P.F.C.No. 336 of 2008 3