IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 13 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/10/2008 IN CMP 1474/08 IN MC.57/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- U.P.M.ASHRAF ,AGED 40 YEARS S/O. UMERABBA, R/AT K.C.ROAD THALAPPADY, MANGALORE TALUK NOW RESIDING AT DOOR NO.M.C. 619 OPPOSITE "PANCHAJANYA" APPARTMENTS PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS:PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 & STATE --------------- 1. AMINATH SHAHEEDA @ SAYEEDA AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. M.A.MOHAMMED ARSHEED MANZIL, N.H. 17 MADA KUNJATHUR , PO MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMAD AJMAL, AGED 9 YEARS. 3. MOHAMMAD AFNAN, AGED 5 YEARS 4. AFRA,AGED 3 YEARS, (PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND GUARDIAN MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT) 5. STATE RERPESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.13 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance to his three minor children aged 9 years, 5 years and 3 years respectively at the rates of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.500/- respectively. Paternity is admitted. That the children are residing with their mother who has already been divorced by the petitioner is also admitted. The claimants/children through their mother had staked a claim for maintenance at the rates of Rs.5000/-, Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3000/- respectively. It was asserted that the children are unable to maintain themselves and the petitioner is a business man employed abroad earning not less than Rs.90,000/-. The claim for maintenance was resisted inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has become an imbalanced person on account of the cruelty of his divorced wife, that is the mother of the claimants, and that he is hence unable to work and earn his livelihood. The mother of the claimants examined herself as PW1. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence. On the side R.P.F.C.No.13/09 2 of the claimants, Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. They indicate the expenses incurred in connection with education of the three minor children. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence. The case stood posted for orders to 14/10/2008. After the orders were prepared and before pronouncement, an application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C for permission for the petitioner to adduce evidence. The learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the said application under Section 311 Cr.P.C and proceeded to pass the impugned order. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied opportunity to adduce evidence. What is the point on which he wants to adduce evidence? Admittedly, he was employed abroad. According to him, because of the cruelty of his wife, he has become imbalanced and is unable to earn his livelihood. The quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. This in short is the contention to be raised. Though a contention has been raised that the petitioner has lost his job, there is no contention in the counter statement that he suffers from any ailment which R.P.F.C.No.13/09 3 makes it impossible for him to work and earn his livelihood. I take note of the possible evidence which the petitioner may want to adduce though that is not specified. I do not find any merit in the contention that the petitioner has been denied opportunity to adduce evidence. At the appropriate time, the petitioner did not adduce evidence. Belatedly, an application was filed to adduce evidence. The evidence can only be on the quantum of maintenance going by the counter statement filed. 3. Reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance which he was directed to pay is absolutely reasonable and does not, at any rate, warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction at the instance of the petitioner. I am satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant interference at all at the instance of the petitioner. 4. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.13/09 4 R.P.F.C.No.13/09 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008