IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 133 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.173/2002 of Family Court, Ernakulam .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- K.B.NIKHIL, S/O BAHULEYAN, SAUDAM NIVAS, C.C.XVIII/274, KADEBHAGAM, PALLURUTHY P.O., KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SANIJA NIKHIL, D/O STALIN, UPPUKOOTTAMTHARAYIL, KADEBHAGAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 2. ASWIN KRISHNA, S/O SANIJA, RESIDING AT UPPUKOOTTAMTHARAYIL, KADEBHAGAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN FOR R1-2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.133 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of rs.600/- per mensum to the claimants - his wife and minor son. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is conceded. In the course of cross-examination of the petitioner herein, the counsel for the claimant/wife had put a very specific question as to whether the petitioner is willing to take his wife along with him. The answer was in the negative. In these circumstances, the contentions regarding the ground of separate residence need not be gone into in detail. The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the evidence on the point and it has been held that the evidence of PW1 deserves to be preferred over that of RW1, the petitioner herein. 2. The only dispute that survives is about the quantum of maintenance. What is awarded is only Rs.6,00/- per mensum each to the wife and the child. Though there was a contention R.P.F.C.No.133/07 2 that the wife is employed she denied the same and proved Ext.A1 certificate to confirm that she does not have an employment in the school where the petitioner asserted that she has an employment. According to the petitioner, in the counter statement his income is only Rs.4,000/- per mensum . But at the stage of trial, he further improved his case and produced Ext.B1 certificate from his employer, admittedly relative of his, to show that his income is only a paltry amount of Rs.2,500/- per mensum. The learned Judge of the Family Court appears to have accepted even that and sailed to the conclusion that at any rate the petitioner must pay an amount of Rs.600/- per mensum to his wife and child. The respondents/claimants have not challenged the quantum and in these circumstances I do not want to comment on the adequacy of the amount from the point of view of the claimants. In any view of the matter, the quantum fixed by the learned Judge of the Family Court does not warrant any interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction at the instance of the petitioner. The finding that the claimants are entitled for maintenance and the quantum of maintenance awarded do appear to me to be R.P.F.C.No.133/07 3 absolutely reasonable, just and fair. If it suffers from any vice, it is only that the quantum of maintenance awarded is not adequate considering the admitted stand of the petitioner herein in the counter statement filed by him. 3. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.133/07 4 R.P.F.C.No.133/07 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008