IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 223 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.199/2002 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. VILLWAMANGALATH RAMAN VILAS NAGAR DESOM, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.IYPE JOSEPH RESPONDENT/PETITINER: -------------------------------------- SMT. SINDHU, AGED 35 YEARS D/O/ AYINNUR BALAN, SURABHI NAGAR KADENGACHIRA, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 223 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 O R D E R In this R.P.F.C. the petitioner assails a direction issued to him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. The claim was filed as early as in 2002. The impugned order was passed long later on 20.2.2008. A lot of events took place during the pendency of the petition. The claimant wife secured an order of divorce from the Family Court in the mean time and she ceased to be the wife from 15.5.2006. During the pendency of the petition, she got re-married also on 10.2.2008. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the claimant wife is therefore entitled for maintenance only from 15.5.2006 till 10.2.2008. There was some evidence to show that the claimant wife was also having some employment, though the evidence did not specifically and squarely cover the period 15.5.2006 to 10.2.2008. It was in these circumstances that the learned Judge came to the R.P.F.C.No. 223 of 2008 2 conclusion that there can be a direction for payment of maintenance from 15.5.2006 to 10.2.2008 at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel submits that, at any rate, during the period 15.5.2006 to 10.2.2008 it must have been held that the claimant wife was not unable to maintain herself. She did have an employment of her own, which was sufficient to take care of her requirement for maintenance. 3. In the nature of the materials that were available before the court below, I am unable to agree that the direction to pay the meager amount of Rs.500/- as maintenance from the date of divorce to the date of re-marriage can, in any view of the matter, be held to be excessive or unjustified. I am not persuaded to agree that the said direction warrants any interference. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the proceedings payments have been made towards R.P.F.C.No. 223 of 2008 3 maintenance for the above period. If any such payment has been made, needless to say, credit shall be given to the said amount. 5. This R.P.F.C. Is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm