IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 210 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.332/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- K.CHERUNNI, S/O.LATE KELU, AGED 55 YEARS, KUZHIMBATTIL HOUSE, THAZHEKKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- K.NALINI, D/O.LATE UNNIRAMAN, AGED 45 YEARS, CHENNANTHODIKA HOUSE, THAHEKKODE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.)No.210 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 O R D E R Basant, J. This R.P.(FC) is directed against an order directing the revision petitioner/husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance to the respondent herein, admittedly his wife. An application for divorce was filed by the revision petitioner herein. The same was dismissed by the impugned common order and appeal against the said order has already been admitted. The spouses are blessed with children. Those children have already got married, it is reported. 2. Thus marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. The husband claims divorce and is not willing to cohabit with his wife. There is no contention or satisfactory evidence to show that the wife has any occupation or income therefrom. In these circumstances, the only dispute that can possibly be raised is about the quantum of maintenance. The court below in these circumstances came to the conclusion that R.P.(FC)No.210/08 -2- the husband whose admitted monthly salary is to the tune of Rs.10,000/- is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem, to the wife. 3. The revision petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the wife has properties and she is taking income from the property. The court below relied on the evidence of the revision petitioner/husband as PW1 that these items of properties are in his possession. The wife asserted that though earlier a gift deed has been executed in her favour, that had been revoked by the husband and thereafter she is not getting any income from the property. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is willing to transfer the property to the wife. But that has admittedly not been done. In these circumstances, the liability to pay maintenance cannot possibly be disputed. 4. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, the amount awarded is only Rs.1,500/- per mensem. That amount, on the basis of the materials available about the needs of the claimant R.P.(FC)No.210/08 -3- and the means of the respondent/husband is found to be absolutely reasonable. The same does not warrant any interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. This Revision Petition is in these circumstances dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn