IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 360 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.191/2007 of 191 OF 2007 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER:RESPONDENT -------------------- V.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. VELAN KUTTY, SURESH NIVAS, VARIYAM PARAMBU, KALLEKKA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------- 1. V.SHEELA, W/O.V.SURESHKUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, PALIYODE VEEDU, VERKOLI P.O., KOLLUPARAMBIL , NOW RESIDING AG C/O-KRISHNANKUTTY, KAMMANTHARA HOUSE, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD. 2. SANJAY, AGED 4 1/2 YEARS, (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDINA/MOTHER THE FIRST PERITIONER V. SHEELA DO...DO.... THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.360 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- per mensem to his wife and child. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is also conceded. The petitioner raised a contention that the matrimonial tie has been dissolved as per customary rights. He further contended that he does not have the means to pay the amounts claimed by his wife and child. 3. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1 and the petitioner examined himself as RW1. The court below proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matrimonial tie has already been dissolved. Even if that contention were accepted, the divorced wife is undoubtedly entitled for payment of maintenance and the plea raised cannot in any way help the petitioner to avoid liability under Section 125 Cr.P.C. R.P.F.C. No.360 of 2008 2 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. According to the wife, he is a real estate dealer. According to him he is only a political worker with no ostensible means of livelihood. 6. The amount awarded is only Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- per mensem. Even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, the quantum of maintenance awarded cannot be said to be excessive. 7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the revision petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed. I do so. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-