IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 340 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.668/2006 of the Family Court, Malappuram .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- ASHARAF,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.THITHIMMATHINTE PURAKKAL ABDULLAKKUTTY, RAYIRAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM,CHEERANKADAPPURAM, NEAR PUMP HOUSE,PO,TANUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. ALIKKANTE PURAKKAL SABIRA, AGED 28 YEARS KORMAN KADAPPURAM, PO, TANUR, RAYIRAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM,TIRURANGADI TALUK 2. YASAR MUHAYADHEEN, 9 YEARS (MINOR) 3. SAMMEMUNNEESA, 7 YEARS,(MINOR) 4. JAMSHEER AHAMMED, 2 YEARS (MINOR) BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.340 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C to the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and three children at the rate of Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- respectively to his wife aged 28 years and his minor children aged 9 years, 7 years and 2 years respectively. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is conceded. That the petitioner has married again after the marriage with the first claimant is also admitted. 3. The only dispute was about the quantum of maintenance payable. The petitioner admittedly was employed abroad for a long period exceeding 12 years. According to the claimant/wife who examined herself as PW1, he continues to be employed abroad. The petitioner herein did not examine himself. His brother was examined as RW1. If the petitioner is not employed abroad, it is not explained why the petitioner did not examine himself. RW1 admitted that the petitioner was R.P.F.C.No.340/07 2 employed abroad for a long period. An inconsequential dispute about the nature of employment was raised. The learned Judge of the Family Court took all the relevant circumstances and did, according to me realistically, fix the amount of maintenance payable per month as indicated above. There is absolutely no circumstance which can persuade me to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the meager amounts directed to be paid as maintenance. An idea about the degree of affluence of the petitioner can be gathered from the fact that even while the marriage with the claimant was subsisting, fully conscious of the nature and extent of his liability, he has married twice again. 4. This revision petition is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.340/07 3 R.P.F.C.No.340/07 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008