IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 41 of 2008() --------------------- MC.141/2005 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... : REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- DANNY ZACHARIA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SRI. ZACHARIA, MANJOORAN HOUSE, PULLUVAZHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY DR.ABRAHAM P.MEECHINKARA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. MARYKUTTY P., AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. POULOSE, NALANKAL HOUSE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT HOSTEL WARDEN, NURSING SCHOOL HOSTEL, JMP MEDICAL CENTRE HOSPITAL, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM. 2. DAHLIA @ JAYALAKSHMI MARIAMMA LUKE, (MINOR AGED 10 YEARS), D/O. SRI. DANNY ZACHARIA, RESIDING AT -DO- BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SMT.R.BEENA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.(C).No.41 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- and 3,000/- per mensem respectively to the claimants, admittedly his divorced wife and child. 2. The marriage is admitted. There is a dispute as to whether the order secured from the High Court is a sufficient order of divorce or not. The fact remains that an order of divorce has been passed and the only dispute is as to whether a further confirmation by the High Court is necessary or not. 3. Be that as it may, it is admitted that the petitioner has married again after obtaining the said order. It is not necessary in a proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C to finally pronounce on the disputed status of the parties. Whether a wife or a divorced wife, the claimants' prayer for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C cannot be disputed. In these circumstances, I concur with the conclusion of the court below that the 1st claimant whether she be the wife or divorced wife is entitled for maintenance under R.P.F.(C).No.41 of 2008 2 Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is not necessary to enter any authentic finding on the disputed question in this proceedings. Parties are left to resort to appropriate proceedings to resolve that controversy. 4. The only other contention legally relevant is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. There is no other worthwhile contention raised. The petitioner offers to maintain the child, but contends that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The learned Judge of the Family Court, it does appear to me, realistically took note of the difficulty of a divorced/estranged wife to prove the precise means of her former husband. We have satisfactory materials to show that the petitioner is an M.B.A degree holder and he has no physical impediment. He had himself in evidence stated that he is in a position to mobilise Rs.4 lakhs. But chose to contend that he is without any means and he is depending on his father and his younger brother to keep body and soul together. The learned Judge of the Family Court realistically came to the conclusion that this assertion cannot be swallowed by a prudent mind without tons of salt. The learned Judge, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, came to the conclusion that the petitioner R.P.F.(C).No.41 of 2008 3 must be in a position to pay the amounts of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively for the maintenance of his wife and child respectively. So far as the wife is concerned, there is some semblance of a suggestion that she has some meager income. So far as the child is concerned, there is material to show that the child was suffering from Leukemia, though the petitioner would contend that she is completely cured now. I am satisfied, in any view of the matter, that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Judge is reasonable, just, fair and is, at any rate, consistent with the evidence available and probabilities about the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimants. In any view of the matter, I am not satisfied that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction can or deserves to be invoked. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-