IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 12 of 2005() --------------------- MC.43/2003 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER. -------------------------------------------------------- S.K.BABU, S/O. KUMARAN, PARAMPUZHA KARA, SOMASADANAM HOUSE, PERUMBIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SMT.LEENA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. JIJA, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. GOVINDAN, KNAJIRATHUNGAL HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. 2. RAHUL, AGED 2 1/4 YEARS, S/O. JIJA, KNAJIRATHUNGAL HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 12 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- respectively p.m. to the claimants, who are the wife and the second child of the petitioner. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. One more child was born in the wedlock. The said elder child is now residing with the petitioner herein. The petitioner was employed abroad and he has allegedly returned from his place of employment. Maintenance was claimed by the claimants on the contention that the petitioner having sufficient means is refusing and neglecting to maintain the claimants who are unable to maintain themselves. 3. Various contentions were raised before the learned Judge of the Family Court. After considering all such R.P.F.C.No. 12 of 2005 2 contentions the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to receive from the petitioner amounts at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- respectively p.m. as maintenance. Accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not now want to assail the impugned order on any other ground. The marital tie having already been dissolved by a decree for divorce, the learned counsel only contends that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. There is a further contention that the petitioner is willing to dispose of his property and settle the disputes with the claimants. Some time is prayed for to settle the claims and report such settlement. 5. The petitioner was earlier employed abroad admittedly. He has returned from his place of employment. According to him he is without any employment now. His wife asserted that he is engaging himself in money lending business after his return from Gulf. No satisfactory evidence in support of that assertion was made available to R.P.F.C.No. 12 of 2005 3 the court by the claimants. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the fact that the petitioner is at any rate an able bodied person. He is bound to work and earn his livelihood and support the claimants. Taking all the relevant inputs into account, the wife and child were held to be entitled for Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- respectively per month. 6. Eventhough there is an assertion that the petitioner is conducting money lending business, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no satisfactory evidence. The learned Judge of the Family Court did not found any conclusion on that assertion. Even without such employment, the learned Judge felt that the petitioner must work and earn his livelihood and pay amounts for maintenance to the claimants. In any view of the matter, the quantum fixed as maintenance to the wife and child by the Family Court warrants no interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. An able bodied person like the petitioner, who was earlier employed abroad and had returned to India can certainly be directed to pay the said amount and it cannot be held that the quantum of maintenance is perverse or unjustified in order to R.P.F.C.No. 12 of 2005 4 persuade this Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 7. This revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner for further time to settle the matter and to remand the matter to the court below to facilitate such settlement cannot be accepted. However, if the petitioner deposits a substantial portion of the amount and takes steps for expeditious settlement of the disputes, needless to say, the learned Judge of the Family Court must consider such prayer and pass appropriate orders on merits. (R. BASANT) Judge tm