IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 RPFC.No. 2 of 2008() -------------------- MC.153/07 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM PETITIONERS ---------------------------- SHARAFUDHEEN.C.P.,S/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI CHELAMPODIPARA, VELLIMUKKU PO, MOONNIYR, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. BALJA BANU,D/O. ISHAK NALAKATH, AREETHALA IRUMBUCHOLA, A.R. NAGAR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NASIB (MIONR) S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY REPRESENTED BY MOTHER IST RESPONDENT DO..DO.... BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.(FC). No. 2 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner who has suffered a direction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance to his wife and child at the rate of Rs.1,300/- and Rs.800/- per month respectively. 2. The marriage and paternity are admitted. Second marriage of the petitioner with another woman is also admitted. On the side of the claimants, Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the petitioner herein, he examined himself as RW1. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. Ext.X1 was also marked. 3. The court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner is bound to pay separate maintenance to his wife and child. The court below fixed the quantum payable as Rs.1,300/- and Rs.800/- per mensum respectively. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his arguments. The short contention raised is that RPFC.2/08 : 2 : the quantum fixed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is excessive and perversely high. The petitioner was employed abroad. But he has lost his employment and has come back to India. The learned Judge took note of the fact that admittedly the petitioner has ceased to be employed abroad. The learned Judge fixed the amount accepting the case of the petitioner that he is only a coolie who has lost his employment abroad. 5. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the quantum fixed by the Family Court does deserve interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of correction and superintendance vested in this Court. The amount ordered does appear to be absolutely reasonable considering the needs of the claimants and the means of the petitioner. Revisional interference with the quantum is not necessary. This R.P.(F.C.) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks