IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 RPFC.No. 8 of 2009 --------------------------- ( MC. NO. 56/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA ) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ CR. PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- KUTTAN PILLAI HARIKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, PRASANNA BHAVAN, KARUMADY PO, ALAPPUZHA DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR. RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- S.SREEJAYA DEVI, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.SUBHADRAKUTTY, JYOTHIS HOUSE, KIZHAKKAN MUTHOOR, KUTTAPUZHA, THIRUVALLA PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DT. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- RP(FC) No. 8 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner in this RP(FC) assails an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per mensem to his wife. 2. Marriage and separate residence are admitted. The claimant resides in India; whereas the petitioner resides abroad. One child born in the wed-lock is living with the petitioner herein at his place of employment abroad and the child is being educated also. The wife resides in India. According to her, she has no means. She prayed that an amount of Rs.7,000/- per mensem may be directed to be paid as maintenance. 3. The application was opposed. It was contended that the claimant has sufficient income and is not, at any rate, a RP(FC) No. 8 of 2009 -: 2 :- woman unable to maintain herself. She has landed property and derives income from such property, it was contended. 4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant/wife herself examined as P.W.1. The petitioner did not examine himself. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the wife is having landed property and that there is income from the trees standing in the property. The learned Judge took the view that the wife must be earning income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem from such property. However, the learned Judge took the view that merely because she gets an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem it cannot be held that she is not unable to maintain herself and that, at any rate, she is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,500/- per mensem from the petitioner herein – the husband of the claimant/wife. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 6. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The only grievance raised before me is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. Having found that the claimant is getting an income of Rs.3,000/- RP(FC) No. 8 of 2009 -: 3 :- per mensem, the learned Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that she is a woman unable to maintain herself. This is the only contention raised. Whether a person is unable to maintain herself cannot be decided in vacuum and the relevant circumstances have got to be taken into consideration. It has to be remembered that the claimant is the wife of the petitioner and the petitioner admittedly is employed abroad and earns an income of Rs.25,000/- per mensem. Even going by the admission of the petitioner, the claimant is entitled to live with such convenience as the wife of a person having such income. In these circumstances, I am unable to agree that the court below committed any error in coming to the conclusion that merely because she has an income of about Rs.3,000/- per mensem from her landed property she can be held to be a woman not unable to maintain herself as to deprive her of her claim for maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. 7. The quantum of maintenance awarded can by no stretch of imagination be held to be irrational or perverse to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The petitioner herein has been directed to pay only 10% of his admitted monthly income to the claimant – his wife. I RP(FC) No. 8 of 2009 -: 4 :- am not persuaded to agree that the quantum fixed by the learned Judge of the Family Court deserves interference. 8. This RP(FC) is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge