IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 225 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.167/2006 of Family Court, Kasargod .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- A.B.IBRAHIM, S/O.BEERA MOIDEEN, PALLATHDKA HOUSE, AJJWARA, SULLIA P.O., KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. K.H.BEEFATHIMA, D/O.MUHAMMED HUSSIN, KUNDROL HOUSE, UDMA VILLAGE, UDMA PADINHAR P.O., HOSDURG TALUK. 2. ALIMATH TASNI, AGED 11 YEARS, (MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND GUARDIAN MOTHER K.H.BEEFATHIMA). ADV. SRI.T.MADHU FOR R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.225 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensum to his wife and Rs.1,000/- per mensum to his child. Marriage, paternity and separate residence and liability to pay maintenance are all admitted before me. The short question raised is about the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid. 2. The petitioner claims to be just a coolie earning an amount of Rs.75/- per day. Admittedly, he has a residential property measuring 15 cents. He has another item of property measuring 1.30 acres. The wife contended that he is a PWD contractor. The wife in cross-examination confronted him with the circumstance that he owns vehicles and vehicles are kept in his residential compound. He, on the contrary, attempted to contend that those vehicles do not belong to him and they belong to his brother-in-law. Ext.A24 extract issued by the Tahsildar, Sulliya Taluk showing the properties owned by the petitioner as well as the deposition of RW1 are relied on by the learned Judge R.P.F.C.No.225/08 2 to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has the requisite ability to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively. 3. So far as the quantum of maintenance for the child is concerned, I am satisfied that the same does not, at any rate, warrant interference even reckoning the petitioner only as just an able bodied person. The said amount directed to be paid cannot be said to be excessive to warrant interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction. So far as the wife is concerned, an amount of Rs.3,000/- is awarded. In the facts and circumstances of this case taking note of the nature of properties own by the petitioner and the evidence of his wife PW1, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance fixed for the wife does not also warrant any interference. I am satisfied that the impugned order does not suffer from any such vice justifying or warranting interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) R.P.F.C.No.225/08 3 jsr R.P.F.C.No.225/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008