IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 161 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.290/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REV. PETITIONER: ----------------- MAJOR KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. LATE MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, VELLAYATHU VEEDU, NIRANAM VADAKKUMBHAGAM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. (PRESENT ADDRESS): MANON KUMAR, HAVILDAR NO.15308985 II ENGR. REJIMENT, NEW DELHI, C/O. 56 APO. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. RAKHI MANOJ KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR, KAKKANATTU VEEDU, PANDANADU, KEEZHUVANMAZHY, CHENGANNOOR TALUK. 2. ROHITH, AGED 6 YEARS (MINOR), S/O. RAKHI MANOJ KUMAR, KAKKANATTU VEEDU, PANDANADU, KEEZHUVANMAZY, CHENGANNOOR TALUK. (MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE MOTHER) 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 161 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,300/- to the 1st claimant – wife, and Rs.1,200/- per mensem to the 2nd claimant – minor son, from the date of the petition. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is conceded. That the petitioner is employed as a military personnel is also admitted. The wife asserted that his income exceeds Rs.15,000/- per mensem. On the contrary, he asserted that he gets only an income of Rs.5,500/- per mensem. No better documentary evidence was adduced. The 1st claimant/wife asserted on oath the relevant facts. No evidence whatsoever was adduced by the petitioner herein. R.P.(FC) No. 161 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, sailed to the conclusion that it was absolutely safe to direct payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,300/- and Rs.1,200/- per mensem respectively to the two claimants. Accordingly, the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order. What is the grievance? The short contention urged is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. Less said about the contention, the better. Even on his own showing the petitioner is a Havildar employed in the Engineering Regiment. On his own assertion he gets an income of Rs.5,500/- per mensem. The petitioner has not chosen to make any better evidence available about the quantum of his income. Reasonable inferences will have to be drawn. 5. I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid to the claimants cannot be said to be grossly and perversely excessive or beyond the means of the petitioner who even on his admission gets an income of Rs.5,500/- per mensem. 6. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for invocation of the R.P.(FC) No. 161 of 2008 -: 3 :- revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction against the impugned order. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be given some further time to make the payment of the arrears of maintenance. I am not persuaded to agree that any directions need be issued. Needless to say, if the petitioner deposits a substantial portion of the amount in arrears and prays for further time, such request must be considered by the learned Judge of the Family Court on merits and in accordance with law. 8. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge