IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 495 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.163/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... : REVISION PETITIONER: (RESPONDENT) -------------------------------------------------- HANEEFA, S/O.VAKAPPATTA KUNHIMUHAMMED, PORUR VILLAGE, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, P.O.CHATHANGOTTUPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: (PETITIONER) ------------------------- UMMUSALMA, D/O.KOTTAKUTHU MUHAMMED, THAMARASSERY VETTIKUNNU, PAYYANADU VILLAGE, P.O.PAYYANADU, ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.495 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem to his wife/claimant. The court below had directed payment of an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision petition assails the quantum of maintenance awarded. The court below had adverted to all the relevant aspects in para.13 of the impugned order. Though he initially asserted that he is not a contractor in shamiana work as asserted by the claimant/wife, he did admit in his cross examination that he does such work. Similarly even though he denied assertions of the wife about his having property, in the course of cross examination, he was compelled to admit that there were properties also. The amount of maintenance awarded is only Rs.2,000/-. I am not persuaded to agree that there is any justification in the prayer to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction against the R.P.F.C. No.495 of 2007 2 quantum fixed by the court below. The totality of circumstances which have been evaluated by the court below eminently justify the quantum fixed by the court below. I am not satisfied that any interference is called for. There is a contention raised before me that a decree for restitution of conjugal right was sought by the petitioner and the same has been dismissed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. An appeal has been preferred against the dismissal, it is submitted. Needless to say, if the petitioner succeeds in that appeal, he shall be at liberty to take necessary steps to get the order modified under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 2. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. The amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court and all other amounts deposited shall forthwith be released to the claimant/wife. Sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- /true copy/ P.A to Judge