IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 289 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.185/2007 of Family Court, Thiruvalla .................... PETITIONER -------------------- AJITH KUMAR, 30 YEARS, S/O.LATE VISHWANADHA PILLAI, EDATHIL VEEDU, KADAPRA MURI, KADAPRA PO., KOIPURAM VILLAGE THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SANDHYA, 27 YEARS, D/O.SANKARANKUTTY SANTHOSH BHAVAN, CHETHAKKAL PO. RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. AKSHY AJITH, 5 AND 1/2 YEARS, S/O.AJITHKUMAR SANTHOSH BHAVAN CHETHAKKAL PO., RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA , REP. BY HER MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.289 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November 2008 O R D E R Though there was an offer by the petitioner to deposit the entire amount as price for admission in an effort to get the matter settled by reference to the Lok Adalath, it is now reported that payments have not been made as undertaken already. It is prayed that the question of admission may be considered on merits. 2. This R.P.F.C is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively to his wife and child. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The claimants have claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per mensum respectively. It was contended that the wife is not unable to maintain herself, that the husband does not have sufficient means and that the quantum of maintenance claimed is at any rate excessive. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The first claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. The petitioner herein examined himself as CPW1. On the side of the claimants, Ext.A1 marriage certificate and Ext.A2 series fee receipt/identification R.P.F.C.No.289/08 2 card were marked to confirm that the claimant/wife has registered as a student in the B.Com degree course. On the side of the petitioner herein, a certificate issued by his employer marked as Ext.B1. He is admittedly having heavy vehicle driving licence and he is empaneled as a driver in the K.S.R.T.C. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the wife is unable to maintain herself and that the petitioner is bound to and has sufficient means to pay the amounts of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensum respectively to his wife and child. 5. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contention that the wife is not a woman unable to maintain herself. She did admit that she was employed earlier at a Call Centre; but she could not continue that employment considering the nature of demands of that career, the work during night etc. There is nothing tangible to show that she has any employment now. In fact, Annexure II confirms her evidence that she is not employed now and has registered herself as a student for the B.Com degree course. 6. So far as the means of the petitioner is concerned, it is R.P.F.C.No.289/08 3 admitted that he is an empanelled driver of the K.S.R.T.C and in that capacity, he gets a monthly income of Rs.3,900/-. In addition to that, there are indications to show that he is a skilled person having qualification to drive heavy vehicles. There are also indications to suggest that he has landed property which fetch him income. 7. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court sitting as a court of revision exercising correctional and supervisory functions. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the conclusion of the court below that the wife is unable to maintain herself and the petitioner has sufficient means and he is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensum to his wife and child warrant interference. The same does not suffer from any such vice justifying or warranting interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 8. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.289/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.289/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008