IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 16 of 2008() --------------------- MC.233/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- NOUFAL.E., D/O.PAKKER, AGED 27, RESIDING AT NASHIDA NIVAS, NEAR PERAMBRA HIGH SCHOOL, PERAMBRA P.O., PIN 673 525 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER & HIS MOTHER KUNHAMI, D/O.MOIDI, NASHIDA NIVAS, PERAMBRA P.O. NEAR PERAMBRA HIGH SCHOOL, KOYILANDY TALUK, KZD. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. E.PAKKER, S/O.PAREEKKUTTY, AGED 60, C/O.AMINA, W/O.KUNHAMMED, MAVULLA PARAMBU, KAYANNA POST, NARAYAMKULAM ROAD, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. NASHIDA.E., D/O.PAKKER E, AGED 32, RESIDING AT NASHIDA NIVAS, NEAR PERAMBRA HIGH SCHOOL, PERAMBRA P.O., PIN 673 525. 3. RASHEEDA.E., D/O.PAKKER.E., AGED 29, RESIDING AT NASHIDA NIVAS, NEAR PERAMBRA HIGH SCHOOL, PERAMBRA P.O., PIN 673 525. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.(F.C.) No. 16 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a direction under section 125 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to the claimant, his father. The relationship is admitted. That the claimant father is a retired police official is also admitted. That he gets a monthly pension of Rs.1,941/- is also admitted. That he has a liability to pay an amount of Rs.500/- to his wife, the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner herein, is also not disputed. The claimant father contended that he is unable to maintain himself with the meagre pension that he gets and that his child even having sufficient means must be directed to pay maintenance to him. The claimant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.A1 to A4. The petitioner, who had entered appearance and conducted the case R.P.F.C.No.16/08 : 2 : through his Power of Attorney holder - his mother, did not adduce any evidence. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the claimant is unable to maintain himself and the petitioner having sufficient means has the liability to pay maintenance to his father. The other children, the sisters of the petitioner, who were only housewives, were found to be having no sufficient means. Accordingly, a direction was issued to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on two specific grounds. He first of all contends that there is nothing to show that the claimant is a person unable to maintain himself. Secondly, the petitioner contends that there is nothing to show that the petitioner herein is a person having sufficient means. Thirdly, the petitioner contends that the quantum of maintenance deserves to be reduced. R.P.F.C.No.16/08 : 3 : 3. Admittedly, the claimant is receiving a monthly pension of Rs.1,941/-. He is bound under law to pay Rs.500/- per month to his wife. The question is whether the person getting Rs.1,941/- by way of pension can be said to be a person unable to maintain himself. He admittedly has the liability to pay an amount of Rs.500/- to his wife. PW1 states that he is unable to maintain himself. I do not find any reason to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is a person unable to maintain himself. To keep body and soul it is evident that the amount of Rs.1,441/- may not be sufficient. Moreover, the ability to maintain must be gauged and judged by the standard of life which the parties are used to. The claimant is a retired police official. The petitioner herein is a person who is allegedly employed abroad. Taking all these circumstances into account, I am unable to find any vice vitiating the impugned finding that the claimant is a person unable to maintain himself. 4. The next question is whether the petitioner is R.P.F.C.No.16/08 : 4 : having sufficient means. Admittedly, he is now abroad. He is a person aged 27 years. He has a family of his own. The court below did not commit any error warranting revisional interference in taking the view that the petitioner is a person having employment abroad and consequently sufficient means. The said finding also does not warrant interference. 5. Finally, the prayer is only that the quantum of maintenance may be reduced. In the facts and circumstances, considering the needs of the claimant and the means of the petitioner herein, I am not satisfied that the quantum of maintenance fixed does deserve to be reduced in revision. 6. It follows that the impugned order does not warrant revisional interference. The challenge fails. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks