IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 29 of 2008() --------------------- MC.39/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER --------------------------- PONNANDIYIL MOHAMMED ALI, S/O MOIDEEN, TIRUR TALUK, ATHAVANAD AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.ATHAVANAD REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER IN LAW BASHEER KOORIKKADAN HOUSE, KOTTOPPADAM P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KONDETH SAFIYA AGED 39 YEARS, D/O ERAMU ALIAS KUNHUTTY, TIRUR TALUK, ATHAVAND AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KARIPOL. 2. NOUSHAD, SON MINOR 15 YEARS 3. SAHNA, MINOR 13 YEARS DAUGHTER 4. SABNA, MINOR, 10 YEARS DAUGHTER 5. MOHAMMED ASHIQUE, MIONR 8 YEARS SON 6. NRUHMAN, MINOR 5 1/2 YEARS SON 7. SOUBEENA MINOR 5 1/2 YEARS DAUGHTER MINOR PETITIONER 2 TO 7 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. 8. FAMILY COURT, MANJERI. 9. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR 10. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY P.P. H.C. OF KERALA. BY SRI.ESM.KABEER FOR R1 TO R7 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.F.C. No. 29 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court under section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and children - six in number. The learned Magistrate has now directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.400/- per month to his wife, Rs.300/- each per month to his three children and Rs.250/- each per month to his other three children. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is conceded. The subsequent marriage of the petitioner is also not disputed at all. The petitioner is admittedly an autorikshaw driver. After the commencement of separate residence of the petitioner and his wife, he has married again and he has got two children in such matrimony R.P.F.C.No.29/08 : 2 : also. 3. Before the Family Court there was only the evidence of the first claimant wife as PW1 and the petitioner husband as RW1. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has the liability to pay maintenance to the claimants. Considering the commitments of the petitioner and his income, the learned Magistrate felt that the impugned direction to pay a total amount of Rs.2,050/- in all for the claimants - wife and children, would be fair and just. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? Which finding of the learned Judge is wrong and in what manner? The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain. The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that considering the nature of the employment of the petitioner and his probable income as also the enormity of the commitment which he has, the direction to pay an amount of R.P.F.C.No.29/08 : 3 : Rs.2,050/- is grossly excessive and perversely disproportionate to his capacity to pay. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned direction may be interfered with and suitably reduced. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not at all persuaded to agree that there is any merit in the challenge raised against the quantum of maintenance stipulated by the learned Judge of the Family Court. The petitioner is an autorikshaw driver. We have no specific satisfactory evidence about his income. The claimants asserted that he gets an income of Rs.6,000/- from his work as driver of the autorikshaw and a further amount of Rs.4,000/- from the autorikshaw which he owns and a further amount of Rs.2,000/- as income from his properties. The petitioner, in turn, contended that he gets only an amount of Rs.50-60 per day. 6. Totality of circumstances has got to be taken into R.P.F.C.No.29/08 : 4 : reckoning. The question is not what the interested contestants had asserted on oath in the witness stand. Probabilities have to be reckoned. The petitioner on his own showing is an autorikshaw driver. An income of Rs.200-250 per day for an autorikshaw driver willing to work does not appear to be erroneous or perverse in any view of the matter. The petitioner has admitted liability to maintain 8 children and 2 wives. That he has willingly embraced such responsibility and liability must also give this Court an idea about his own assessment of his means and ability to support himself and his children. The totality of circumstances make it abundantly clear that the conclusion of the learned Judge of the Family Court that the petitioner can be directed to pay an amount of Rs.400/- to the wife, Rs.300/- each to the three children and Rs.250/- each to the other three younger children is eminently correct and does not in any way warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The amount awarded is only a pittance when R.P.F.C.No.29/08 : 5 : one takes into account the probable needs of the claimants. However, the learned Judge, evidently concerned about the number of persons that the petitioner has to maintain(the petitioner himself does not appear to be too worried about that), has chosen to direct payment of a total amount of Rs.2,050/- only. In any view of the matter, the order does not warrant interference. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks