IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 320 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/05/2007 IN OP. 478 /2006 IN MC.45/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... : REVN. PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- PALLIPARA MEHBOOB, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, C/O. VENDRAN (NAJMA), MARATHANI, KARUVAMBRAM P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. PARAMMEL RAJEENA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. LATE PARAMMAL MUHAMMED, PARAMMAL HOUSE, NEAR ANAKKAYAM SEED FARM, ANAKKAYAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RAHIB LAL, AGED 10 YEARS (MINOR), S/O. MEHBOOB. 3. RASHID LAL, AGED 8 YEARS (MINOR), S/O. MEHBOOB, BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R1 TO 3 SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL FOR R1 TO 3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.320 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner in this petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the Family Court obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/-, Rs.800/- and Rs.700/- respectively to his wife aged 29 years and sons aged 10 years and 8 years respectively. Marriage, paternity, separate residence and second marriage of the petitioner are all admitted. Of course, the petitioner has a contention that he was constrained to marry again because of the indifferent attitude of the first claimant/wife. Be that as it may, at the moment, second marriage is admitted and the first claimant has no obligation to reside with him. 2. The only serious question that arose for consideration is the quantum of maintenance which is liable to be paid. There was a contention that the first claimant was employed as an Anganvadi teacher. There is no evidence to support the said assertion. The first claimant as PW1 denied the said allegation. About the means of the petitioner herein, there were contradictory assertions. The wife asserted that the petitioner is running an ayurvedic medicine shop. The petitioner asserted R.P.F.C.No.320/07 2 that he is not the one running the establishment and that his brother runs the same. He is there only to assist his brother. No better materials are placed before court to choose between these two contentions. The wife had asserted that the husband was running the shop. Some idea of his level of affluence is certainly available from the fact that he, who is unable allegedly to pay maintenance to his wife and children, had gone and married again and embraced the responsibility to look after one more woman. Reasonable inferences can certainly be drawn. This coupled with the fact that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show the ownership of the shop in question or his status as an employee under his brother are, according to me, sufficient to justify the course adopted by the learned Judge of the Family Court to prefer the version of the claimant over that of the petitioner herein. 3. The amounts awarded are found to be not grossly excessive or perversely disproportionate to the materials available about the needs of the claimants and the means of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded does not warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. R.P.F.C.No.320/07 3 4. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- as per the order of this court dated 6/8/2007. The petitioner has been arrested and detained in custody on the ground that he has not discharged the liability under the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that subject to appropriate conditions, the petitioner may be given opportunity to raise the balance amount and discharge the liability. 6. It is in these circumstances directed that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.10,000/- forthwith (within a period of one month) and executes a bond with two solvent sureties undertaking to pay the entire balance amount within a further period of one month, the petitioner shall be released from custody. The amount so deposited shall forthwith be released to the claimants. Sureties in such bond shall undertake that if the petitioner does not pay the amount, they shall make such payment to the court. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.320/07 4 R.P.F.C.No.320/07 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008