IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 RPFC.No. 15 of 2009() --------------------- MC.61/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER/CR.PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- BABU, S/O.LUKOSE, THENGUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- RANI, D/O.PHILIP, ARIMPARAMBU VEEDU, PIZHAKU P.O,KADANADU KARA,KADANADU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 15 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the petitioner to assail an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the claimant, his wife from the date of the order. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also not disputed. The petitioner, though served, did not file any objections. He did appear for counselling. On the side of the claimant, she examined herself as PW1. Ext.A1 marriage certificate was produced and proved. No other evidence was adduced. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court in these circumstances proceeded to pass the impugned order directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. from the date of the order. The court took the view that the uncontroverted averments in the petition read along with the R.P.F.C.No. 15 of 2009 2 uncontroverted assertions on oath by PW1 and Ext.A1 marriage certificate sufficiently establish the case of the claimant. Accordingly the court proceeded to pass the impugned order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file a counter statement. No other contentions are raised. 4. In the nature of the facts referred to above, I am of the opinion that the court below was eminently justified in directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. from the date of the order. The impugned order suffers from no legal defect, inadequacy, perversity or illegality as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The thrust of the challenge in the memorandum of revision is against the quantum of maintenance fixed. Even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, I am satisfied that the order directing payment of maintenance is reasonable and does not, at any rate, warrant interference. R.P.F.C.No. 15 of 2009 3 5. This revision petition is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm