IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 182 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.59/2007 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- PHILIP THOMAS, PALAMOOTIL HOUSE, NELIMALA P.O., ERAVIPEROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SHERRY SUSAN KOSHY, PALAMOOTIL HOUSE, NELIMALA P.O., ERAVIPEROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. (SABARMATHY, KARIPUZHA P.O., MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SHEFIN SARA PHILIP,(MINOR), D/O SHERRY SUSAN KOSHY, -DO- 3. MICHELLE SUSAN PHILIP,(MINOR) S/O SHERRY SUSAN KOSHY, -DO- REP. BY FIRST RESPONDENT THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.182 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this Revision Petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance to his minor children- claimants, aged 13 and 6 years respectively. Paternity is admitted. Strained relationship with the wife is also admitted. The petitioner had filed a petition for divorce and that petition stands dismissed. An appeal is said to be pending. An application for custody of children is also pending, it is submitted. 2. Be that as it may, paternity is admitted. Children are now in the custody of their mother, through whom they have staked the present claim for maintenance. There is no contention that the children have any property from which they get income and can sustain themselves. The burden is thus on the petitioner/husband to show that he has discharged his obligation to pay maintenance to them. 3. In the counter statement, the petitioner appears to have taken the contention that he has parted with amounts in R.P.F.C. No.182 of 2008 2 favour of his wife. Nay, to be precise, the contention is that the wife who is employed in a bank had appropriated to herself amounts which were entrusted to her. There is also a contention that certain properties which allegedly belong to the petitioner have been appropriated to herself by the wife. What is crucial to me is that there is no contention even that any amount has been paid for the children or any property has been conveyed to them to provide for their maintenance. 4. The conclusion, in these circumstances, appears to be irresistible that the children are entitled to claim maintenance from their father, the petitioner herein. 5. Coming to the quantum of maintenance payable, admittedly the petitioner was employed as a Lecturer in the St.Thomas College, Kozhenchery. It is submitted that he later resigned from his job. Now he is at Bangalore. The petitioner wants the Court to believe that he, who has such qualification, is not now employed. The court below has awarded maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,200/- per mensem respectively only. The claimants have not chosen to challenge the quantum of maintenance awarded. Viewed from any angle, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded is absolutely justified R.P.F.C. No.182 of 2008 3 and the background of the petitioner and his qualification do eminently support the reasonableness on the justness of the quantum awarded. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 6. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-