IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 42 of 2009() --------------------- MC.85/2000 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER : RESPONDENT IN M.C.85/2000 -------------------- SASEENDRA BABU, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. SANKARANARAYANAN, SREENARAYANAPURAM HOUSE, SREENARAYANA PURAM VILLAGE, PANANGAD P.O., KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN M.C.85/2000 & STATE --------------- 1. SINDHU, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. ULLANISSERY BHASKARAN, PERUMBILLISSERY DESOM, CHERPU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. SIBIN, AGED 14 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER IST RESPONDENT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.42 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 ORDER In this petition, the petitioner/husband challenges an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensem to the claimants, admittedly his wife and minor child from the date of the petition. 2. The acrimony between parties has a long story of several litigations. Five such proceedings were disposed of by the impugned common order. The marital tie stands dissolved on the application of the husband as per the impugned common order. Therefore the entitlement of the wife to claim maintenance after the date of the order cannot possibly be challenged. As a divorced wife, she is certainly entitled for maintenance. The challenge against the post order maintenance can only be with reference to the quantum of maintenance awarded. 3. The only other dispute is about the entitlement of the wife for maintenance from the date of the petition to the date of the order. The court below has exercised its discretion to direct R.P.F.C. No.42 of 2009 2 payment from the date of the petition. The husband had earlier filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights. That application was withdrawn by him. Later he filed an application for divorce. At any rate it is evident that from the date of the petition to the date of the impugned order there was no offer by the husband to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. In fact, his claim was only for divorce. In the total absence of an offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him, the husband cannot avoid the liability to pay maintenance from the date of the petition to the date of the order. This position has been clarified in the decisions of this Court in Mary v. Varghese [2008 (4) KLT 522] and Zeenath v. Sulfiker Ali [2008(3) KLT 757]. In these circumstances the direction to pay maintenance from the date of the petition to the date of the order cannot also be validly challenged. 4. All that remains is about the quantum of maintenance awarded. The quantum of maintenance awarded is only Rs.500/- per mensem. Even if the petitioner is reckoned merely as an able bodied person, the quantum of maintenance awarded is found to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. At any rate, no interference with the quantum of maintenance awarded can or R.P.F.C. No.42 of 2009 3 need be made in this revision petition. The revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction does not, at any rate, require invocation to interfere with the meager quantum of maintenance awarded. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of maintenance awarded does appear to be absolutely reasonable. The same does not warrant interference. 5. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-