IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 183 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP. 428 /2007 IN MC.300/2007 of 300/2007 OF Family Court, Malappuram .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. ------------------------------------------------ FAISAL P.A., S/O. ABDUMON, PANDIKASSALA PARAMBIL, CHAITHANNIYA NAGAR, THIRUVATHRA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS. ------------------------- 1. ASMA P.K., D/O. AMMU, PIKKININTE HOUSE, PUTHUPONNANI, PONNANI SOUTH P.O, PONNANI. 2. MUHAMMED IMRAN (MINOR), (MINOR PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.183 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this R.P.F.C assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensum to his wife and child. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is conceded. Separate residence is also admitted. That the petitioner is employed abroad is also conceded. That the petitioner has contracted another marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the first claimant is also admitted. What then is the dispute? The only possible dispute is about the quantum of maintenance that is directed to be paid. An amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensum respectively is ordered to be paid. We have no satisfactory evidence about the precise quantum of income of the petitioner. But there is evidence to show that he was employed at Quatar earlier for eight years and is now employed at Dubai for the last four years. The petitioner did not examine himself. No materials were placed before court about the precise quantum of income. The court was in these circumstances compelled to take all the relevant inputs into R.P.F.C.No.183/08 2 account and ascertain the quantum of income of the petitioner and the quantum of maintenance to be paid to the claimants. It is, in these circumstances, that the learned Judge proceeded to fix the quantum payable at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively. The fact that while this matrimony is current, the petitioner has chosen to voluntarily take upon his shoulders the responsibility of another marriage is also rightly taken into account as one relevant input by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 2. I am satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the quantum of maintenance fixed at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensum is grossly excessive or disproportionate to the proved means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimants. At any rate, I find no merit or justification in the prayer that the quantum fixed warrants interference by the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 3. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.183/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.183/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008