IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 406 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.344/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... : PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- VISWANATHA MOOLYA, S/O.VENKAPPA MOOLYA, RESIDING AT KUNTANGARADKA, KIDOOR VILLAGE, ICHILAMPADY POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 -------------------------------- 1. RAKSHITHA, AGED 12 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER LEELAVATHI, D/O.KINHANNA MOOLYA, RESIDING AT KANCHIKATTA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. DHEEKSHITHA, AGED 10 YEARS, MINIOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER LEELAVATHI, -DO-. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.406 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has suffered an order directing him to pay maintenance @ Rs.750/- per mensem to claimants 2 and 3, his minor children aged 11 years and 9 years respectively. Though claimant No.1, his wife, also claimed maintenance, her claim was turned down by the learned Magistrate. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The wife has not preferred any revision against the impugned order rejecting her claim for maintenance. The petitioner undoubtedly has the legal obligation to maintain his children - claimants 2 and 3. The only question to be considered is whether the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is so grossly erroneous, excessive or perverse as to warrant invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 3. The claimants asserted that the petitioner earns an income of Rs.6000/- per mensem as salary from Kasargode Institute of Medical Sciences, where he was employed as a worker. Now it is not disputed that he has such employment. R.P.F.C. No.406 of 2007 2 Before this Court, Annexure-A order has been produced which shows that the gross wages payable to the petitioner per mensem is Rs.4,146/-. 4. I am satisfied that the amount of Rs.750/- each per mensem payable to the children aged 11 years and 9 years, by any stretch of imagination, cannot in the circumstances of the case be held to be excessive or perverse. The challenge must, in these circumstances, be rejected. 5. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-