IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 208 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.102/2007 of FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER : COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------- RAJENDRAN, S.O,MADHAVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PARACKAL HOUSE, SANTHANPARA KARA, SANTHANPARA P.O., UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS -------------- 1. T.K.GEETHA, W/O.RAJENDRA, AGED 38 YEARS, THUMBAYIL, SANTHANPARA KARA, SANTHANPARA P.O., UDUMANCHOLA. 2. RANJITH, S/O.RAJENDRAN, AGED 16 YEARS, THUMBAYIL, SANTHANPARA KARA, SANTHANPARA P.O., UDUMANCHOLA. 3. SREEJITH, S/O.RAJENDRAN, AGED 13 YEARS, THUMBAYIL, SANTHANPARA KARA, SANTHANPARA P.O., UDUMANCHOLA. 4. ABIJITH,S/O.RAJENDRAN, AGED 10 YEARS, THUMBAYIL, SANTHANPARA KARA, SANTHANPARA P.O., UDUMANCHOLA. REPRESENTED BY MOTHER T.K.GEETHA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.208 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- to his wife, Rs.400/- each to his minor children aged 16 years, 13 years and 10 years (Rs.1,700/- in all) respectively per mensum. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. The petitioner raised a contention that his wife is guilty of adultery. That plea is not substantiated. The only other contention raised by the petitioner is that he is not having sufficient means. He was found to have properties belonging to him in his possession. There was nothing to show that he was not an able bodied person unable to earn his livelihood. It was in these circumstances that the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to pass the impugned order. It has been made clear that the minor children are entitled for maintenance only till they attain majority. R.P.F.C.No.208/08 2 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. No other contentions are raised. 3. The amount of maintenance awarded is only Rs.500/- to the wife and Rs.400/- each to the three children. The petitioner has landed properties without any doubt. He is bound to work and earn his livelihood also. He is a person having a wife and three children. To discharge the liability to maintain them, he will have to work hard. By no stretch of imagination can it be held that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive or unreasonable as to justify or warrant invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. I do not find any merit in this petition. This petition only deserves to be dismissed. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.208/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.208/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008