IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 345 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.557/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- K.MANOHARAN, AGED 54, S/O K.KRISHNAN, PUTHUVALPOTTA VEEDU, PACHALOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- GEETHA, AGED 40, D/O SAROJINI, KURUTTIKUNNATHU VEEDU, KULAPPULLY, SHORNUR-2, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 345 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this R.P.F.C. assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. to the claimant, his wife. Solemnisation of the marriage is not disputed, but it is contended that the said marriage was a nullity. An application for declaration for nullity of marriage filed by the petitioner was admitted, but the same has been dismissed. Appeal has been preferred against that order. 2. The petitioner is a Forest Guard and he has a monthly income of about Rs.9,000/- from such employment. Before the learned Judge of the Family Court in this proceedings there is only the evidence of the claimant/wife as PW1 and the petitioner herein as RW1. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the wife is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the ground? The counsel first of all submits that R.P.F.C.No. 345 of 2008 2 the plea that the marriage is null and void should have been accepted. In this proceedings certainly that plea cannot be accepted and admittedly a petition to that effect stands dismissed. If the petitioner succeeds in appeal, he can certainly move the Family Court to modify the order under section 127 Cr.P.C. At any rate, solemnisation of the marriage having been admitted, until such declaration for nullity is given, the petitioner is bound to maintain his wife. 4. There is a contention that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. She runs a shop, it is contended. There is no evidence except the oral evidence of the respondent, which was rejected by the court below. I find no reason to interfere with that finding of fact rendered by the Family Court. 5. All that now survives is the challenge against the quantum of maintenance. Admittedly the petitioner has a stable employment as a Forest Guard. His monthly pay is around Rs.9,000/- He has the liability to pay maintenance to the child in the earlier mairriage at the rate of Rs.650/-, it is submitted. Notwithstanding that, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded is absolutely reasonable. If R.P.F.C.No. 345 of 2008 3 the same suffers from any defect, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I will only say that it is that the quantum fixed is inadequate. There is no challenge raised so far against the said order. I am satisfied that in any view of the matter the impugned order does not warrant revisional interference at the instance of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner will have to shortly retire from government service. If that be so and on that ground the impugned order deserves modification, the option of the petitioner to approach the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. shall also remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. 7. This revision petition is dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm