IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 227 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/10/2007 IN MC.84/2007,OP.107/2007 IN OP.80/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.UNNIKANNAN PULIKKALAKANDY, CHENANGATTILCHALIL HOUSE, CHEEKODE POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- C.V.SUHRA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.ABDURAHIMAN, NEEROLPINGAL HOUSE, VATTAPPARA, P.O.CHERUVAYOOR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 227 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 O R D E R In this revision petition the petitioner assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to the claimant, allegedly his wife. 2. Eventhough the marriage was disputed in the counter statement, at the stage of evidence there is an unambiguous admission regarding marriage. The learned Judge of the Family Court in these circumstances came to the conclusion that there was a valid marriage. Annex.A1 marriage register was also produced. There is no attempt made before me to strain to assail the finding regarding marriage. There was overwhelming evidence, in addition to the admission made by the petitioner in the box, to come to a safe conclusion regarding existence of the marriage. 3. The only contention on which the order is assailed is the quantum of maintenance awarded. The petitioner was shown R.P.F.C.No. 227 of 2008 2 to be a Mechanic working in the Telephone Department on temporary basis for the past many decades. According to him he has no employment. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the fact that he enjoyed good health and at any rate his monthly income could not be less than Rs.5,000/- The petitioner has a contention that he has some ailments. No witness was examined to prove such ailment. No oral or documentary evidence was pressed into service in support of that contention. The Family Court, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that maintenance deserves to be awarded at the rate of Rs.2,000/- 4. I am not satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the quantum of maintenance awarded deserves to be interfered with by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. This R.P.F.C. is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm