IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 65 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/12/2007 IN CMP 1800/2007 IN MC.99/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER : RESPONDENT: ---------------------------- C.P.LATHEESH, AGED 33 YEARS, CHEENAMPALLIPARAMBIL, SREESAILAM, P.O.KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS P/A HOLDER AND FATHER SIVADASAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, CHEENAMPALLIPARAMBIL, SREESAILAM, P.O.KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------- 1. SIMI, D/O.RAJAN, MEETHALE VALAPPIL HOUSE, SHIJIL NIVAS, VATAKARA TALUK, P.O.MADAPPALLY COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. AGNEY, MINOR SON, AGED 4 1/2 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER GUARDIAN. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 65 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This revision petition is direction against an interim order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- and 3,000/- respectively to his wife and child. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is also admitted. That the petitioner is employed abroad is not disputed. That the claimant child is sick is not disputed. The short question was about the quantum of interim maintenance that was liable to be paid. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the expenses of medicine etc. for the child. It was accordingly that an amount of Rs.4,000 (Rs.1000 + 3000) was awarded as interim maintenance for the wife and the child. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction can or ought to be R.P.F.C.No. 65 of 2008 2 invoked. 3. According to the petitioner, though he is working abroad, the total amount available with him after the expenses will only be Rs.5000/- Even if it be that, the direction to pay Rs.4000/- out of that Rs.5,000/- cannot be held to warrant interference. 4. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm