IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 179 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.615/2006 of Family Court, Palakkad. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------- UNNI S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, ARANGATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT NO.1B, BOY'S ROAD, THEYNAMPETTA, CHENNAI- 18. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------- 1. LEELA D/P.SANKARAN NAIR, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAVUKATTIL, PERINGODE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. AJITH S/O.LEELA, AGED 7 YEARS, (MINOR) (2ND RESPONDENT - MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN - MOTHER/ 1ST RESPONDENT) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.179 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to his wife and Rs.1,250/- per month for the child. Respondents have entered appearance. Marriage and paternity are not disputed. The petitioner raised a contention that the separate residence of the wife is not justified. The claimants had claimed a total amount of Rs.3,500/-. The petitioner contended that the amount claimed was excessive. According to him, he has an income of Rs.80/- per day. The claimants had contended that he is running a catering unit at Chennai and gets an income of Rs.15,000/- mensum. Wife/claimant was examined as PW1. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner was present the claimant/wife was not cross-examined. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence. It is in these circumstances that the learned Judge chose to set the petitioner ex parte. The Family Court then proceeded to pass the impugned ex parte order directing payment at the rates mentioned above. R.P.F.C.No.179/2008 2 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's grievance is that his wife is residing separately without sufficient cause. His further grievance is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 3. The impugned order is an ex parte order. The petitioner has not chosen to take resort to the provisions of the Code under which the ex parte order can be set aside by the Family Court. Instead he has chosen to challenge the impugned order on merits. 4. On the first contention in the total absence of even an offer to take the wife along with the petitioner and maintain her on condition that she lives with him, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this revision. It was for the petitioner to show that separate residence of the first claimant/wife is unjustified if his offer were turned down by the wife without sufficient cause. 5. The only other contention raised is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. Admittedly, he runs a catering unit at Madras. The amount awarded to the wife and R.P.F.C.No.179/2008 3 child is a total amount of Rs.2,750/-. On the basis of the materials available and considering the broad probabilities of the situation - of a person going all the way to Chennai and work there to run a catering unit, I am unable to agree that the quantum of maintenance awarded is grossly excessive or perversely disproportionate to the needs of the claimant or the means of the petitioner. In any view of the matter I am satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant interference. 6. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge