IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 49 of 2008() --------------------- MC.711/2006 of Family Court, Palakkad .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------- SURESH KUMAR,AGED 33 YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL TEACHER PUTHILATHU VEEDU, VADATHODE VANDITHAVALAM, CHITTUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ----------------------- 1. ADVAITH, AGED 2 1/2 YEARS, (MINOR) S/O. SURESHKUMAR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER RAJITHA,D/O. NEDUMBARAYIL N.K.RAMADAS,THARAKKALAM,CHITTUR VILLAGE CHITTUR TALUK. 2. RAJITHA,D/O. NEDUMBARAYIL N.K.RAMADAS, THARAKKALAM,CHITTUR VILLAGE CHITTUR TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.49 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a direction issued to the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensum to the claimant, his child, from the date of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. The father and the mother are residing separately consequent to some strain in the matrimony. Both the father and the mother are employed as teachers. Both of them get a monthly income of about Rs.12,000/- each. The claimant/child represented by its mother claimed an amount of Rs.3,500/- per mensum as maintenance. The petitioner took up a contention that the mother is residing separately without any legal justification. He further contended that the quantum of maintenance claimed was excessive. 2. The mother of the claimant examined herself as PW1. No other evidence whatsoever was adduced. The learned Judge of the Family Court, by the impugned order, directed payment of an amount of Rs.2,000/- only per mensum to the child. R.P.F.C.No.49/08 2 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? Before me, it is argued that the quantum of maintenance fixed is excessive. Though other contentions were raised before the Family Court, no other contentions are raised now. 4. Admittedly, the father has an income of about Rs.12,000/- per mensum. He has no obligation to maintain his wife as the wife - the mother of the petitioner herein, is able to maintain herself by the salary which she receives. The petitioner claimed that he has the liability to maintain his aged parents also. 5. In any view of the matter, the direction issued by the learned Judge of the Family Court to the petitioner, a person getting a monthly income of Rs.12,000/- (and who is not liable to maintain his wife now) to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mens um to his only child cannot be held to be incorrect, improper or perverse as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the same. The quantum fixed, does appear to me to be absolutely reasonable. At any rate, it does not warrant interference at the R.P.F.C.No.49/08 3 instance of the petitioner herein. The claimant has not challenged the said order and it is not necessary to make any mention about such challenge, if any raised. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already moved the Family Court for the custody of the child. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that any order passed in the present proceedings may not fetter his claim for custody of the child. Needless to say, the claim for custody of the child will have to be decided on its merit and on the evidence to be adduced by the parties in such proceedings. 7. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.49/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.49/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008