IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 367 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.700/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------- HARIS, AGED 30, S/O.UMMER,PALLATH HOUSE, NEAR TO PATTAMBI MARKET,NETHIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM,P.O.PAYYAMBI-679303,OTTAPALAM TALUK,REP.BY BROTHER AS P/A HOLDER MAJEED, S/O.UMMER,PALLATH HOUSE,T.B. ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SUNEERA, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. POKKAR,POONJIRI HOUSE, KODALUR.P.O, MELE PATTAMBI-679306, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED ANAS, AGED 4 1/2 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER IST RESPONDENT, -DO- THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 367 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.1,500/- p.m. respectively to the claimants, admittedly his wife and child. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The petitioner is employed abroad. The short contention is that the amount awarded is excessive. No other contentions are raised. Admittedly the petitioner is employed abroad. There is a dispute as to whether he is employed as a driver or a tailor. Be that as it may, the evidence is very clear that he is employed abroad. Before leaving for his place of employment abroad, he was admittedly working as a driver. There is conflicting assertions about the monthly income. The wife asserts that he gets an income of Rs.30,000/- He contends that the income is less than Rs.10,000/- Nothing is produced in R.P.F.C.No. 367 of 2008 2 support of the said contention of the petitioner. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that the petitioner can be directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.1,500/- p.m. respectively to the claimants. 3. I find absolutely no vice vitiating the impugned order. I am not persuaded to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the impugned order. 4. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm