IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 141 of 2004() ---------------------- MC.269/2003 of THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER : --------------------------------------------------- 1. RADHANANDHAN, S/O. LATE ANANDAN, AGED 42 YEARS, MATTUMMAL HOUSE, NEAR PUTHIYAKAVU, P.O.AZHIKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. M.KAVYA D/O. M.P RASEETHA (MINOR) AND 4 YEARS (REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT) BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------- 1. M.PRASEETHA, D/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, MUKRI HOUSE, THREE ROAD, P.O. AZHIKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. M.KAVYA, D/O. M.PRASEETHA(MINOR) AGED 4 YEARS(RERESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT) BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P(FC) No. 141 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by an order passed by the Family Court directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and the child at the rate of Rs.500/- and Rs.300/-per month respectively from the date of the impugned order. Marriage is admitted. The child was born during the currency of the matrimony. But the paternity is disputed. Notwithstanding the dispute, there is no semblance of materials placed to prove non access. There is a contention that the wife was residing separately without any sufficient reason but the unsubstantial plea of denial of paternity itself is a sufficient ground to justify separate residence. In these circumstances, there can be no dispute whatsoever that the claimants, his wife and the child are entitled to maintenance. 2. The next question is whether the claimants are able to maintain themselves? A contention was urged that the first claimant has an employment. The petitioner attempted to substantiate that contention. The witness who was examined by RP(FC). No. 141 OF 2004 2 him stated categorically that the claimant was only a temporary employee. The evidence shows that the claimant was not having any employment on the date when the evidence was tendered. I note that the maintenance was awarded only from the date of the order. The fact that during the pendency of the petition, the first claimant wife had some employment, in these circumstances, can have no crucial relevance at all. 3. Coming to the means of the petitioner, it was asserted that he was having a heavy vehicle driving licence. He denied the same. No better evidence was produced. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, took note of the fact that the petitioner is an able bodied person. He contended that he suffers from kidney ailments. There was no material whatsoever produced in support of that assertion. 4. It is, in these circumstances, that the learned Judge proceeded to issue the directions to pay the meager amounts of Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- to the wife and the child. They have not attempted to challenge the order. In any view of the matter it cannot be held that the impugned order suffers from any vice RP(FC). No. 141 OF 2004 3 which can justify or warrant invocation of revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. This RP(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb RP(FC). No. 141 OF 2004 4 RP(FC). No. 141 OF 2004 5