IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 176 of 2008(Y) ----------------------- MC.83/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------- V.R. RAJAN, VETTATHU VEEDU, KUDAKACHIRA KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. M.S. RAJAMMA, KONGANIKATTIL VEEDU, VALAVOOR KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. RESHMA RAJAN (MINOR), DO. DO. 3. AKHIL RAJAN(MINOR), DO. DO. 4. ARCHANA RAJAN(MINOR), DO. DO. REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, 1ST PETITIONER. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 176 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- each per mensem to his three minor children. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. The learned Judge of the Family Court taking all the relevant circumstances into account came to the conclusion that claimant children are entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- each per mensem. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 3. Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all contends that the petitioner is willing to maintain the children on condition that they live with him. This is not a defence permissible under law in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner can certainly approach the Court and seek custody of the children, if he is entitled for the same. At any rate, he cannot say that he would pay maintenance to the children only if RP(FC). No. 176 OF 2008 2 they are returned to his custody. The said contention cannot succeed. It is next contended that the claim of maintenance awarded is excessive. The amount awarded is Rs.400/- each per mensem to the three children. Accept any standards, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid does not warrant revisional interference. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence and even reckoning him as just an able bodied person, I am satisfied that the impugned order passed and quantum fixed do not warrant interference at all. 4. This RP(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb RP(FC). No. 176 OF 2008 3 RP(FC). No. 176 OF 2008 4