IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 118 of 2008() ---------------------- M.C.NO.471/2007 OF Family Court, MALAPPURAM : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ KAVUNGAL ABDUL MAJEED,AGED 32 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KAVUNGAL HOUSE V.K. PADI, A.R. NAGAR AMSOM, MAMBURAM DESOM TIRURANGADI TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------- 1. MATTAN FATHIMABI,AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. MALAYIL KANDANCHERI MOIDEEN MALAYIL KANDANCHERI HOUSE, KUZHIYIL VALLIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, P.O.VALLIKUNNU NORTH TIRURANGADI TALUK. 2. FASMILA, AGED 7 YEARS,(MINOR) 3. FASIL, AGED 3 YEARS, (MINOR) (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.118 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C to oblige the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.700/- and Rs.500/- respectively to his wife and two minor children. 2. Marriage and paternity are admitted. That the wife went away to her house is also admitted. According to the wife, matrimonial cruelty had compelled her to take up separate residence. It is admitted that subsequent to the commencement of the separate residence, the petitioner had married twice though he hastens to add that he had divorced the two wives married in both subsequent marriages. The petitioner claimed that he was maintaining the claimants. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1 and the petitioner examined himself as RW1. The learned Judge of the Family Court in these circumstances came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for maintenance at the rates indicated above. Accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. R.P.F.C.No.118/08 2 3. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claimants are now residing along with the petitioner in the same house. There is absolutely nothing to justify this contention though it is pointed out that the address of the petitioner shown is the same as the address of the respondent. Be that as it may, even assuming that they are sharing the same roof, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is making payments and amounts for the maintenance of the claimants. In these circumstances, even the alleged fact that the estranged couple share the same roof cannot justify the claim for absolution from the liability under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The only other question is about the quantum of maintenance awarded. Rs.1,000/- per mensum to the wife aged 23 years and Rs.700/- and Rs.500/- respectively for the children aged 6 years and 3 years on the date of the petition is found to be absolutely justified and consistent with the evidence available about the needs of the claimants and the means of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the quantum awarded does not also warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. This revision petition is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.118/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.118/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008