IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 209 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.447/2004 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER : RESPONDENT ----------------- SATHYADAS, S/O.SAMUEL, PULIMOODU VEEDU, NELLIKKAKUZHI, KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------- 1. SOBHA, D/O.LILLY BAI, DERBHAVILLA VEEDU, PANCHIKALA, ARUMANOOR, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ABI (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SOBHA, D/O.LILLY BAI -DO----. 3. AJIN, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SOBHA, D/O.LILLY BAI -DO----. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.209 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensum to his two children, that is claimants 2 and 3. Though the wife had also claimed maintenance, she was not awarded maintenance as agreed and maintenance was awarded only to claimants 2 and 3. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. The petitioner is said to be allegedly a coolie worker. He allegedly gets Rs.200/- per day as wages. He also allegedly gets Rs.2,000/- per mensum from his properties. 2. Before the court below only the first claimant/mother and the petitioner herein tendered evidence as PW1 and RW1. No better evidence was placed before court about the needs of the claimants or the means of the petitioner herein. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, the learned Judge of the Family Court took the view that an amount of Rs.500/- per mensum can be awarded as maintenance to the two children. R.P.F.C.No.209/08 2 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The short contention urged is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. I am unable to agree that on the materials placed before court about the needs of the claimants and the means of the petitioner the amount of maintenance awarded can by any stretch of imagination be held to be unreasonable, excessive or perverse as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I find no merit in this challenge. This revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this revision petition may be admitted and the matter may be sent to the Lok Adalath so that an attempt can be made to settle the disputes and the parties can be persuaded to resume co- habitation. If the petitioner is serious in his effort, he can independently pursue those efforts. If he thinks intervention of the court is necessary, he can approach the learned Judge of the Family Court with an application for restitution of conjugal rights, in which event, needless to say, attempt shall be made by the learned Judge to conciliate and settle the disputes. I am not R.P.F.C.No.209/08 3 persuaded that for the purpose of attempting settlement of the disputes between the wife of the petitioner and the petitioner, the claimants need be dragged to this court. I am certainly not persuaded to agree that this revision petition deserves admission for that purpose. 5. With the observation that if the petitioner is serious, he can continue his efforts for settlement directly or through the Family Court, this R.P.F.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.209/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.209/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008