IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 116 of 2007 ---------------------- MC.362/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------ KUNJAYINKUTTY, S/O.KUNJASSANKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'BUSTHAN', MANAD, EDAKKUZHITHAZHAM, ULLIERI AMSOM, MANAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MUHAMMED SUHAIL, S/O.KUNJAYINKUTTY, AGED 16 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SUBAIDA.C.K., D/O.ASSANKUTTY, RESIDING AT 'BUSTHAN', MANAD, EDAKKUZHITHAZHAM, ULLIERI AMSOM,DESOM, KAKKANCHERI P.O. KOYILANDY TALUK, ATHOLI. 2. MOHAMMED NIZAR, S/O.KUNJAYINKUTTY, AGED 4 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SUBAIDA.C.K., D/O.ASSANKUTTY, RESIDING AT 'BUSTHAN', MANAD, EDAKKUZHITHAZHAM, ULLIERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, ATHOLI. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R1 & R2 SMT.K.V.RASHMI (CONCILIATOR) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, ALONG WITH MA NO.23 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C Nos.116 of 2007 and Mat.Appeal No.23 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 ORDER BASANT, J. R.P.F.C.No.116 of 2007 is filed by the revision petitioner/father challenging the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per mensem respectively to the claimants, his minor children. 2. Paternity is admitted. That the children have any means is not pleaded or substantiated. The liability of the revision petitioner to pay maintenance cannot, in these circumstances, be disputed. 3. What then is the challenge ? The learned counsel for the revision petitioner only submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 4. We repeat that the amount awarded is only Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per mensem respectively. Admittedly the revision petitioner/father has properties. He was employed in the Gulf States for a long period of 18 years. Even going by his version, R.P.F.C Nos.116 of 2007 and Mat.Appeal No.23 of 2007 2 he is employed now. There is dispute about the nature of the employment and the quantum of income derived from such alleged employment. Be that as it may, in addition to his prior savings it is undisputed that there is income from his present employment also. The first child was aged 13 years at the time when the petition was filed in 2003. It is admitted at all hands that the 1st child is now aged 18 years. The second child was aged only one year at the time when the claim was staked. 5. Viewed from any angle, we are not persuaded to agree that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive or unjust as to warrant invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. In the circumstances of the case, considering the inputs available about the affluence of the revision petitioner and the needs of the claimants, we are satisfied that the quantum fixed by the Family Court is fair, reasonable and just and does not, at any rate, warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The challenge raised in the revision petition cannot, in these circumstances, succeed. R.P.F.C Nos.116 of 2007 and Mat.Appeal No.23 of 2007 3 6. Mat.Appeal No.23 of 2007 is filed by the appellants. They are aggrieved by a decree passed by the court below allowing the claim of the respondents in part. The respondents had claimed a decree for recovery of plaint A schedule property and B schedule pathway to the property as also C schedule articles available in the residential building in plaint A schedule property. 7. The 1st appellant and the 1st respondent were spouses. It is admitted at all hands that the said marital tie has now been dissolved as per talaq pronounced on 24.08.03. It is submitted at the Bar that a claim under Section 3 of the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was filed by the 1st appellant and the same has already been allowed against the 1st respondent. 8. That plaint A schedule property and B schedule pathway leading to A schedule belonged only to the 1st respondent and that he has exclusive title over the property going by the recitals in the documents of acquisition Exts.A1 and A2. The 1st appellant attempted to set up a contention that the funds for purchase of A & B schedules came from her. There is R.P.F.C Nos.116 of 2007 and Mat.Appeal No.23 of 2007 4 no satisfactory evidence to show that the amounts paid as contribution under Exts.A1 and A2 were contributed by the 1st appellant and in these circumstances the court below came to the conclusion that the 1st appellant's claim for exclusive or partial title over A & B schedules is not acceptable. However, the court found that the 1st appellant/wife is entitled to all movable properties described in plaint C schedule. Accordingly, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned order granting the claim for recovery of plaint A schedule property and plaint B schedule pathway. The 1st appellant was permitted to remove all the movable articles in the house in plaint A schedule property. The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellants reiterates the contention that though the name of the 1st appellant is not shown as the acquirer of the property in Exts.A1 and A2 title deeds, really the amount paid as consideration was contributed by her exclusively. There is no acceptable evidence to conclude that it was the 1st appellant who contributed amounts for payment of consideration in Exts.A1 and A2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the 1st R.P.F.C Nos.116 of 2007 and Mat.Appeal No.23 of 2007 5 respondent had raised a contention that the amounts required for purchase of Exts.A1 and A2 properties were remitted by him in the name of his brothers through banking channels, he has not produced any evidence to substantiate the said contention. That inadequacy notwithstanding, we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the court below that the appellants have failed to show that the consideration for Exts.A1 and A2 acquisitions was contributed by the appellants is absolutely correct and justified on the basis of the evidence available. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the challenge raised against the impugned order cannot also succeed. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the decree can bind only the appellants and the children of the 1st appellant and the 2nd respondent - respondents in the R.P.F.C have rights as the children of the 1st respondent to continue to reside in the property. They have not been made parties in O.P.No.528/04 and it is unnecessary for us to hazard any opinion on the rights if any of the children of the 1st appellant and the 1st respondent - proprietary or in equity to reside in plaint A schedule property. At the appropriate stage, that contention can R.P.F.C Nos.116 of 2007 and Mat.Appeal No.23 of 2007 6 if raised be considered by appropriate fora and we do not intend to express any opinion on such a possible contention by them. 10. In the result, a) R.P.F.C No.116/07 is dismissed. b) Mat.Appeal No.23/04 is dismissed with the above observations. 11. Parties are directed to suffer the respective cost. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-