IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RPFC.No. 409 of 2007() ---------------------- REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- ASHARAF BABU K., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. BAVA, KURUNIYAN HOUSE, OTHUKKUNGAL AMSOM DESOM, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS : PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 & STATE ----------------------------------------- 1. P.P.RASLI, D/O. P.P.HAMZA, AGED 24 YRS, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, THALAKKADATHUR, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ASHKAL,(MINOR), S/O. ASHRAF BABU, AGED 7 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT PARAPPURATH HOUSE, THALAKKADATHUR, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 3. HASNA (MINOR), D/O. ASHRAF BABU, AGED 6 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT PARAPPURATH HOUSE, THALAKKADATHUR, CHERIYAMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2010 ALONG WITH O.P(F.C) NO.1153 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** R.P(F.C) No.409 of 2007 & O.P(F.C) No.1153 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. R.P.(F.C) No.409 of 2007 This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband against an order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and two minor children @ Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. There is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with the husband. There is not a semblance of evidence to suggest that the wife and children are not unable to maintain themselves. 3. The liability for payment of maintenance cannot in these circumstances be doubted or questioned. According to the revision petitioner/husband, he is a politician. He works also. According to him, he works only for two days a month. He claims that an amount of Rs.150/- per mensem is enough for him to look after and maintain himself. R.P(F.C) No.409 of 2007 & O.P(F.C) No.1153 of 2010 2 4. The court below took note of all the relevant circumstances and felt that a person with wife and two children, even if he can manage himself with Rs.150/- for a month, must work and support his wife and children. The court, in these circumstances, considered all inputs and drew reasonable inferences on the possible minimum irreducible income which the revision petitioner must have been earning. The court held that he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively to his wife and two minor children. 5. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? The short contention raised is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. Less said about this contention, the better in the facts and circumstances of this case. Going by his own admitted evidence, the husband is not working to his full potential to earn his income. Going by the indications available about the needs of the 24 year old wife and two minor children - aged 7 and 6 years, the quantum of maintenance awarded, ie. Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively, cannot be held to be excessive or perverse. To sum up, we find absolutely no reason R.P(F.C) No.409 of 2007 & O.P(F.C) No.1153 of 2010 3 to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the impugned order. The challenge fails. This R.P(F.C) deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. It will not be inapposite in this context to mention how this R.P(F.C) came up before us for hearing. The order impugned was passed in 2007. Long later in 2010, the wife and children have filed an application for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Very interestingly the husband took up a plea before the Family Court that inasmuch as this R.P(F.C) is pending, the court should not take up the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C for consideration. The Family Court rejected that plea and the petitioner filed O.P(F.C) No.1153 of 2010 to challenge that order. When that petition - O.P.No.1153 of 2010, came up for consideration, we called for records in this R.P(F.C) with an observation that both the matters can be disposed of together. It is accordingly that we have heard the matter. 7. We feel that it would be dereliction of duty cast on us not to dispose of the R.P(F.C) or to direct the keeping in abeyance of the petition filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C awaiting disposal of this R.P(F.C). We have made this observation only to R.P(F.C) No.409 of 2007 & O.P(F.C) No.1153 of 2010 4 explain how this matter, which could be disposed of by the learned Single Judge, came up before us for consideration. O.P(F.C) No.1153 of 2010 As indicated earlier, this O.P is against the rejection of the prayer by the petitioner that the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C may be kept in abeyance till the R.P(F.C) No.409 of 2007 is disposed of. We have already disposed of R.P(F.C) No.409 of 2007. This O.P now needs only to be dismissed. 2. We deem it necessary to direct the Family Court to take up the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C for consideration as expeditiously as possible. 3. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/