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. 119 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.42/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... : REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ P.G.KALIDASAN @ P.G.K.MENON AGED 65 YEARS, ,MILITARY PENSIONER, S/O. IKKAVAMMA, PARIYADATH, VALAPUZHA AMSOM DESOM OTTAPALAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT C/O.P.G.BHAGEERATHI, PARIYADATH HOUSE,(GKB MANDIRAM) PATTARIA COLONY,LOKAMALESWARAM, BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MADHAVIKUTTY AMMA,D/O. PARVATHI AMMA, AGED 57 YEARS, CHOLAYIL PARAPPATTA, VALLAMPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. BIJOY, S/O.MADHAVIKKUTTY AMMA AGED 21 YEARS, CHOLAYIL PARAPPATTA, VALLAMPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 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.119 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the 1st claimant, his wife. So far as the 2nd claimant- the son of the petitioner is concerned, there is a direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensem till the date of attainment of majority by the 2nd claimant. In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner assails the direction for payment of the amount of Rs.1,000/- as monthly maintenance to the 1st claimant/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also conceded. There is no contention before me that the petitioner is willing to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with him. 3. The first contention urged before me is that the 1st claimant/wife is not unable to maintain herself. It is next contended that in any view of the matter the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is excessive. 4. The claimant asserted that she has no job or income. Admittedly she resides in a parcel of land measuring 21 cents where a house is also available. It is contended that she is in R.P.F(C). No.119 of 2008 2 possession of 30 cents of paddy field and 82 cents of coconut garden. Even the argument before me is only that the petitioner and the 1st claimant are equal co-owners of these items of properties. The claimant asserted that there is no income from the properties. The petitioner asserted that his wife gets an income of Rs.800/- per mensem from the properties that belong to both of them. 5. Admittedly the petitioner draws a pension of Rs.4,157/- per mensem. 6. I find no merit in the contention that the 1st claimant/wife has not been shown to be a woman unable to maintain herself. Though it is asserted that she gets an income of Rs.800/- per mensem from the properties, which income she is liable to share equally along with the petitioner herein, there is absolutely nothing tangible to show that she is getting any such income from the properties. Even assuming that she gets a meagre income from such properties as contended by the petitioner, I am satisfied that that cannot help the petitioner to successfully contend that his wife is not a person unable to maintain herself. R.P.F(C). No.119 of 2008 3 7. The petitioner admittedly gets an income of Rs.4,157/- per mensem as compensation. Even assuming that he has no other income whatsoever, the direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem to his wife does appear to me to be absolutely reasonable and justified. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances which can justify the invocation of revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction against the said direction. 8. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-