IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 140 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.5/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- BINU PRASAD, S/O.MOHANAN NAIR, D/O.AMBIKA DEVI AMMA, SHAJI NIVAS, MATHIRA MURI, MANKODU VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SARANYAMOL, D/O.AMBIKA DEVI AMMA, SHAJI NIVAS,MATHIRA MURI, MANKODU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 2. ADITHYAN, S/O.SARANYAMOL OF DO . DO. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.140 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay maintenance @ Rs.750/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively to his wife and child . 2. The marriage, paternity and separate residence are admitted. There is no dispute regarding the eligibility of the child to receive maintenance. As against the claim of the wife, the only contention is that she is not unable to maintain herself and that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 3. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. The petitioner examined himself as CPW1. CPWs 2 and 3 were also examined. 4. The court below came to the conclusion that though there is some evidence to show that the wife was given properties by her parents at the time of marriage, of which, part of it had been surrendered by her and another property obtained in her name, the income from such property was not sufficient to entitle R.P.F.C. No.140 of 2008 2 the petitioner to claim absolution from liability. The learned Judge of the Family Court realistically took note of the fact that the wife must be getting some income from such property, but however proceeded to hold that such income derived by the wife would not take her out of the category of persons who are unable to maintain themselves. The petitioner is shown to be employed in the K.S.E.B. He has a stable income. He did not choose to adduce precise evidence of his income at the relevant time. Ext.B3 pay slip was produced, but that is relating to an anterior point of time. Thereafter there was a revision of pay and the counter petitioner; the court below had noted that - has not chosen to produce any documents to show the post pay revision entitlement of his. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amount awarded to the wife is unjustified and excessive. In view of the income which she must be assumed to get from the property which she has, the direction to pay maintenance to her is unjustified, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I am unable to agree. I must alertly take note of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a court of revision exercising supervisory and correctional R.P.F.C. No.140 of 2008 3 jurisdiction. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the conclusion of the court below that the income which the 1st claimant/wife may be getting from the property in her possession cannot be held to be sufficient to take her out the category of persons unable to maintain themselves is absolutely justified. It is taking into consideration such income which she may be receiving from such sources that the learned Judge chose to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.750/- per mensem only to the wife while directing the payment of Rs.1,000/- to the child. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that no interference is necessary with the impugned order invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 7. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-