IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 220 of 2008() ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4/07/2007 IN MC.NO.791/05 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD) ............................... REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- DINESH KUMAR, S/O.REVEENDRANATHAN, PANTHAPARAMPU MAKKAPARAMPU HOUSE, MUDAPPALLUR ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN JAMES RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SUNITHA, W/O.DINESH KUMAR, 29 YEARS, PATHAPARAMBU VEEDU, MUDAPPALLUR (P.O), ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. DHIPIN, S/O.DINESH KUMAR, 9 YEARS, PATHAPARAMBU VEEDU, MUDAPPALLUR (P.O), ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE FIRST RESPONDENT) BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.220 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner, who has suffered an ex parte order under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- per mensem respectively to his wife and child from the date of the petition i.e., 13/11/06. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. The petitioner was set ex parte even though he was duly served. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order setting him ex parte and no application has been filed by him to get the ex parte order set aside, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Before the learned Judge of the Family Court, there was only an unchallenged evidence of P.W.1. The learned R.P.(FC) No.220 of 2008 -: 2 :- Judge came to the conclusion that the maintenance can be awarded at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- per mensem respectively. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? According to the petitioner, wife is not a woman unable to maintain herself. She has an employment as a tailor. According to him, though he was a qualified driver earlier, he has suffered accident and ailments that he is unable to pursue such employment now. In these circumstances, the quantum of maintenance awarded is, at any rate, excessive. 5. The evidence of the wife/claimant shows that the petitioner is employed as a driver. Even, according to the petitioner, he was employed as a driver, there is no material whatsoever to show that he is not unable to work as a driver. 6. Even assuming that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the petitioner is a driver reckoning him only as an unskilled worker and just an able bodied person, I am of opinion that the quantum directed to be paid does not deserve or warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that R.P.(FC) No.220 of 2008 -: 3 :- coercive processes are pending against the petitioner and the petitioner may be given some time to make payment and avoid such coercive processes. I am not satisfied that any specific direction need be issued by this Court. Needless to say, if the petitioner deposits a substantial amount and prays for time to make the balance amount, the learned Judge of the Family Court must consider such request on merits and pass appropriate orders expeditiously on such application. 8. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say, the petitioner’s option to file an appropriate application under Sec.127 Cr.P.C., if circumstances exist, to alter the order of maintenance shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this revision petition. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No.220 of 2008 -: 4 :-