IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 331 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.131/2007 of Family Court, Malappuram .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- C.V.MURALEEDHARAN, 33 YEARS, S/O.C.P.VELAYUDHAN, CHEENIKKAPRAMBIL HOUSE, PALATHOL DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE BRISTON SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1 & 2 --------------------------------- 1. PREETHA.M., 27 YEARS, D/O.GANAPATHI, MADATHIL HOUSE, VELLILA P.O., MANKADA AMSOM, VELLILA DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RAHUL, 3 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, (MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, PREETHA.M., D/O.GANAPATHI, MADATHIL HOUSE, VELLILA P.O., MANKADA AMSOM, VELLILA DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.331 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per mensum to the second claimant, admittedly his child. 2. Marriage and paternity are admitted. Wife was not granted maintenance on the ground that she resides separately. What then is the dispute? The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. He has lost his job and in these circumstances he is not able to pay the said amount, it is contended. There is nothing to show that the petitioner is not an able bodied person. Reckoning him just as an able bodied person, I am satisfied that the direction to pay a meager amount of Rs.800/- per mensum is absolutely fair, reasonable and just. The same does not, in any event, warrant any interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 3. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 2 R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 3 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008