IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 199 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.134/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- SALIMKUMAR, S/O.P.A.VASU, PARAYIL HOUSE, CHENNAPADI VILLAGE, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- SHILA K.V., D/O.RAJAPPAN K.V., KOIPURATH HOUSE, KIZHAKKEKARA KARA, CHENNAPADI VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 199 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has suffered an order passed by the Family Court under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the claimant – his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. Two children have been born in the wed-lock and those children are residing with the petitioner. This is also admitted. 3. What then is the dispute? What is the ground of challenge? The learned counsel submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is so grossly excessive and perversely high that it deserves revisional correction. 4. There is no evidence to show that the wife is having R.P.(FC) No. 199 of 2008 -: 2 :- any independent means of her own. The petitioner has, as admitted, a total income exceeding Rs.7,000/- - about Rs.2,500/- by way of pension and about Rs.4,500/- by way of salary. It is in this background that I have to consider whether the award of an amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the wife deserves revisional correction. 5. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the amount awarded is absolutely reasonable, fair and just, viewed from the angle of the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has issued a direction that the wife must be allowed to continue to reside in the house. I will take it that the amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem awarded is in addition to the provision made for residence. Even then, I am not persuaded to agree that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive or perversely high as to warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also wants to point out that though his monthly income by way of salary is Rs.4,528/-, an amount of Rs.2,300/- is being recovered and the net salary is only Rs.2,228/-. While computing the quantum of maintenance what is of crucial importance is the total salary and R.P.(FC) No. 199 of 2008 -: 3 :- the fact that the petitioner has availed loans etc., leading to deduction from the gross salary and reducing the carry home salary cannot be reckoned as crucial while considering the quantum of maintenance payable. 7. This R.P.(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge