IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 8 of 2004() -------------------- MC.94/2003 of Family Court, Kannur .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- MADHUSOODHANAN. K., S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 29 YEARS, ETTIYATTU HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA, THRICHAMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & STATE: -------------------------------- 1. MINI. P., D/O. P. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 20 YEARS, PUTHALATHU HOUSE, MAZHOOR, PANNIYOOR POST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.8 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensum as maintenance to the claimant, his wife. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is not conceded. Admittedly there is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. In fact it is admitted that the petitioner is desirous of getting a decree for divorce and had already filed a petition to that effect. 2. In these circumstances, the claimant is certainly entitled for maintenance. The only other question is about the quantum of maintenance. The claimant asserted that the petitioner is getting an income of Rs.5,000- per mensum. It is also asserted that he gets an amount of Rs.32,000/- per annum from his properties. The rival contestants made the assertions on oath. Exts.P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the complainant. R.P.F.C.No.8/04 2 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensum can be awarded as maintenance. Admittedly, the petitioner is a plumber/electrician. Reckoning him just an unskilled able bodied person, I am of the opinion that the quantum directed to be paid cannot be held to be incorrect or perverse as to justify or warrant the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.8/04 3 R.P.F.C.No.8/04 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008