IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 347 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.669/2006 of Family Court, Malappuram .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- JAYADAS,S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 36 YEARS THALAPPALLI VATTOM PARAMBATH, MANNANTHARAPADI,POST K.PURAM, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: ------------- RAJASREE,D/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 26 YEARS,OZHUR POST,ERANALLUR, TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.347 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,200/- per mensum to his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. There is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner took a stand that the claimant is mentally ill. Suffice it to say that there is no offer to maintain her on condition that she lives with him. 3. So the only question that had to be resolved legally is the quantum of maintenance. The claimant contended that the petitioner runs a bakery. The petitioner contended that he has miscellaneous work in connection with bakery. There was a dispute about the quantum of maintenance to which the claimant is entitled to. The learned Judge of the Family Court took the view that an amount of Rs.1,200/- is liable to be paid as monthly maintenance. The petitioner contends that the said amount is excessive. R.P.F.C.No.347/07 2 4. Even reckoning the petitioner as an unskilled manual worker, the amount of maintenance awarded can by no stretch of imagination be held to be improper or perverse as to warrant the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The impugned order does not warrant any interference in these circumstances. 5. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.347/07 3 R.P.F.C.No.347/07 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008