IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 64 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/05/2007 IN OP.386/2005 IN MC.191/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- AJITH K.T.K., S/O. BALAN, AGED 37 YEARS, KELOTH THAZHE KUNI HOUSE, CHORODE AMSOM, DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT THE HOUSE OF KUTTIARI THAZHE KUNIYIL DEVI, W/O. GOPALAN. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. NAINA A.K., D/O. RAVEENDRAN, KANISHANTE THAZE KUNIYIL HOUSE, ONCHIYAM AMSOM, KANNOOKARA DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, P.O.KANNOOKKARA. 2. ADHEENA, D/O. NAINA A.K., AGED 4 YEARS, KANISHANTE THAZE KUNIYIL HOUSE, ONCHIYAM AMSOM, KANNOOKARA DESOM,VADAKARA TALUK, P.O.KANNOOKKARA, REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT NAINA. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.APPLN. NO. 1964/2008 IN RPFC 64/2008 DISMISSED. 29-7-2009 SD/-R. BASANT, JUDGE SD/-M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE ks. R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.)No.64 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This petition is filed by the petitioner to assail an order passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- per mensem respectively to the claimants – his wife and minor child. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is conceded. Subsequent divorce is also accepted. 2. What then is the dispute? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. This is the only contention to be considered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the petitioner does not want to assail the quantum of maintenance ordered to be paid to the second respondent- his minor child at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensem. 4. The only dispute that survives is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem R.P.(FC)64/08 -2- to the wife is excessive or not. The petitioner claims to be a coolie, aged about 35 years at the time of filing the petition. Though it is contended that the wife is employed, she has asserted contra and no better evidence has been produced by the petitioner to prove any such employment or income for her. The petitioner has admittedly got an employment though there is a dispute as to the nature of employment and income therefrom. In this revision petition, the only question that we are called upon to decide is whether the quantum fixed by the court below demands or warrants interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence or correction. Going by the needs of the first claimant, now a divorced wife, by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the award of Rs.1,000/- per mensem id excessive. There is no clinching evidence about the quantum of income of the petitioner also though it is brought to out notice that the petitioner had admitted that his income is about 5,000/- per mensem in this proceedings proceedings. It is not necessary for us to go into those details. Even as a mere able bodied person, we are satisfied that the quantum of R.P.(FC)64/08 -3- maintenance awarded at Rs.1,000/- per mensem is absolutely fair, reasonable and just and does not at any rate warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 5. The counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an extent of 15 cents of land. He submits that both parties are entitled for half rights each in this item of property. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Family Court has already declared by a separate judgment that the respondent has absolute rights over that item of property. It is not necessary for us to go into that dispute also. If the petitioner has a claim for half right over the said property, he can enforce it by appropriate legal process and the dismissal of this R.P.(FC) will not in any way affect his alleged half right over such property. Admittedly, there is no house in the property, though there is an assertion that there is a half constructed house in the property. At any rate, the quantification of the amount of maintenance payable at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem will not in any way be affected even if we accept that 15 cents of property are available for the first claimant/wife and that she gets some income from R.P.(FC)64/08 -4- the said property. The upshot of the above discussion is that we do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum fixed by the court below. This R.P.(FC) is accordingly dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn