IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 RPFC.No. 314 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.175/2003 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- RAJAN, PALACKAL PARAMBIL, ASSISI NAGAR, HOUSE NO.14, PATTERIPURAM, ALUVA-1. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.M.C.ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SONY, D/O.VARGHESE, KADAYIL HOUSE, SYRIAN CHURCH, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. GLEN (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SONY KADAYIL HOUSE, SYRIAN CHURCH, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 3. SHAMILY (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SONY, KADAYIL HOUSE, SYRIAN CHURCH, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 314 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner has filed this RP(FC) to challenge an order directing payment of maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. to the claimants – admittedly his children, at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively. 2. The claim for maintenance was staked by the wife and the two minor children aged 8 years and 6 years respectively. Marriage and paternity were admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. There was a contention that the wife is residing separately without sufficient cause. It appears that there was an agreement to dissolve the marriage. But the terms were not finally agreed upon and the said agreement did not work out. The parties went to trial in these circumstances. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on the side of the claimants and R.Ws.1 and 2 R.P.(FC) No. 314 of 2008 -: 2 :- were examined on the side of the petitioner. Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 to B7(a) were marked. 3. The claim for maintenance of the wife was turned down by the learned Judge of the Family Court. That rejection has become final and there is no challenge before me against that finding that the wife is not entitled for separate maintenance. 4. Maintenance granted to the children is assailed on the ground that the maintenance awarded is excessive. The petitioner is a Coolie, it is submitted. He does not have the means to pay the amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- -per mensem respectively to the claimants. The 1st claimant/wife was employed abroad. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the claimants/children may be reduced. 5. It is further submitted that in the agreement for divorce by mutual consent which did not ultimately work out, there was an agreement that an amount of Rs.50,000/- each be deposited in the name of the two minor children and the minor children be permitted to avail the interest due on such deposits every month. That agreement did not work out though the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- each before the bank. Those deposit receipts in the name of the minor children with the R.P.(FC) No. 314 of 2008 -: 3 :- petitioner as their guardian/nominee have now been produced before the court below. 6. The point in dispute is only the quantum of maintenance that is payable. We have satisfactory indications to show that the 2nd claimant, who has been awarded Rs.1,500/- per mensem, is afflicted with juvenile diabetes and the guardian/mother is constrained to spend money for such treatment. That is why an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensem has been awarded to one child; whereas for the other only Rs.1,000/- per mensem has been awarded. 7. The contention is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The petitioner is a married person. He has a wife and two children. For the wife, no maintenance is awarded at all. The obligation is to pay amounts of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively to his two children. Even reckoning the petitioner as just and able bodied person, I am not satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded is grossly excessive or perverse as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The learned Judge of the Family Court, according to me, has committed no error in coming to the conclusion that the two minor children/claimants are entitled to Rs.1,500/- and R.P.(FC) No. 314 of 2008 -: 4 :- Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively. In any view of the matter, conscious of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction, I am not satisfied that the quantum of maintenance fixed does warrant interference. 8. In the result: (a) This RP(FC) is dismissed. (b) It is reported that the deposit receipts for an amount of Rs.50,000/- each in the name of the two children are produced before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate may direct and the bank shall forthwith pay the proceeds of those deposits to the claimants which shall be adjusted towards the maintenance allowance as per the impugned order till now. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 314 of 2008 -: 5 :-