IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 RPFC.No. 387 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.157/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ JANEEV N.NATARAJAN, AGED 36 YEARS, PACKING CENTRE, TATA TEA LIMITED, PALLIVASAL P.O., MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH RESPONDENTS : PETITIONERS --------------------------- 1. SINI, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNAN, KUZHIVELIL HOUSE, KURINJI P.O., RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 2. SREELAKSHMI, AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, RESIDING AT -DO- ABOVE. ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY FOR R1 & 2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** R.P.F.C No.387 of 2007 ********************* Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 ORDER BASANT, J. This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the Family Court, Kottayam, directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- per mensem respectively to his wife and child. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity of the child is also admitted. Separate residence is also conceded. The revision petitioner was properly served. He appeared before the Family Court. He did not file a counter statement. The impugned order shows that he offered to pay maintenance to his child. Subsequently he did not appear. Hence he was set exparte. The wife was examined as PW1. The court below proceeded to pass the impugned order. 3. Significantly no steps have been taken to get the exparte order set aside in accordance with law. The petitioner has come before this Court with this revision petition. R.P.F.C No.387 of 2007 2 4. This revision petition was called along with Mat.Appeal No.441 of 2007. The learned counsel for the respondent now presses for an early hearing of this revision petition as it is not integrally connected with the subject matter of Mat.Appeal No.441 of 2007. We are satisfied that the said request is justified. We do not think that this revision petition should remain any longer merely because the parties in this revision petition and the parties in Mat.Appeal are the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain the nature of the challenge that he wants to mount against the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the claimant/wife has certain properties and she has income from such properties. She cannot hence be reckoned as a person unable to maintain herself. At any rate, the quantum of maintenance awarded to her @ Rs.1,000/- per mensem is excessive, contends the counsel. 6. The plea that she is not a woman unable to maintain herself has not even been raised before the Family Court. No attempt has been made to get the exparte order set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to produce a document which would R.P.F.C No.387 of 2007 3 show that the petitioner has title over and possession over an extent of land. We are not persuaded to agree that any such fresh document can or need be received in this revision petition, no reasonable cause having been offered for the non production of such document before the court below. It is significant that such a plea was not raised before the Family Court at all. 7. As stated earlier, marriage and paternity have been admitted. That the petitioner is employed is also not disputed. There is nothing to show that the claimant/wife and child are not unable to maintain themselves. Quantum of maintenance awarded, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- per mensem for a 32 year old woman and her 5 year old child, is, to say the least, meager. That is hardly sufficient for the claimants to keep body and soul together. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the impugned order granting maintenance does not warrant interference. The challenge fails. 8. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for enhancement of maintenance awarded as per the impugned order is pending before the Family Court. The R.P.F.C No.387 of 2007 4 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be made clear that the impugned order under Section 125 Cr.P.C or this order passed in this revision petition shall not fetter the rights of the petitioner to urge before the Family Court in such application under Section 127 Cr.P.C that the claimant/wife is having income from an item of property belonging to her and in her possession. We make it clear that this order or the impugned order shall not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to urge that contention before the Family Court in proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 10. It is made clear that arrears if any deposited before the Family Court shall forthwith be released to the claimants/wife and child. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/