IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 192 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.160/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SATHIAN, AGED 36 S/O. THACHORACKAL PARVATHY AMMA VELUPPAL MEETHAL, PIGHOTTUPURAM, KUNNAMANGALAM PO KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SMITHA, AGED 26 D/O. KUNNUMMAL MEETHAL MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR 'SREEVALSAM' CHERIYAMBARATH, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. KRISHNAPRIYA, D/O. SMITHA KODICHINTAVIDA HOUSE, 'SREEVALSAM' CHERIYAMBARATH, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. (MINOR RESPONDENT NO.2 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER IST RESPONDENT) BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 192 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has suffered an order under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the claimant – his wife, and Rs.750/- per mensem to the other claimant – his child. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. No dispute is raised about the liability to pay maintenance before me. Two contentions alone are raised before me. Firstly, it is contended that the wife is having an employment in a Screen Printing Press and that therefore she is not a person unable to maintain herself. Secondly, it is contended that, at any rate, the petitioner, who runs a petty shop near the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, does not have sufficient means to pay the maintenance directed to be R.P.(FC) No. 192 of 2008 -: 2 :- paid. The quantum fixed is excessive. These are the only two contentions raised before me. 3. Admittedly, there is no satisfactory evidence to prove such employment of the claimant/wife. That she was earlier employed is no reason to blindly assume that even after the child birth and that the responsibilities to maintain a 3 year old child, she continues to be employed. Satisfactory material in support of such assertion was not made available before the Family Court. In these circumstances, the court found that the 1st claimant/wife was unable to maintain herself. 4. The petitioner is admittedly having the business of running a shop near the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. I shall assume the petitioner to be just an able bodied person. Even then the materials available about the needs of the claimant and the probable means of the petitioner are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the amount awarded is absolutely reasonable. I am not persuaded to agree that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction deserves to be invoked to interfere with the impugned order on either of the R.P.(FC) No. 192 of 2008 -: 3 :- two grounds referred above. The challenge fails. 5. This R.P.(FC) is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge