IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.NO. 181 OF 2009() ------------------------------------- MC.279/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- P.UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, APPATTUTHODI HOUSE, ANAMANGAD P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.UDAYAKUMAR (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.GEETHA, 41 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, KONNANATH PUTHEN VEEDU, MANISSERI P.O., VANIYAMKULAM VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. RAHUL, 10 YEARS (MINOR), (REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER K.P.GEETHA IST PETITIONER). ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO.181 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard petitioner who appeared in person and counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Order under challenge is that of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C. No.279 of 2007 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing petitioner to pay maintenance to respondents 1 and 2, his wife and son at the rate of Rs.800/- and Rs.500/- respectively, per month from the date of application and authorising respondent No.1 to collect the allowance on behalf of respondent No.2 also. Petitioner contends that amount awarded is excessive and beyond his capacity to pay. Counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner is capable of paying that amount and that he is working as an Accountant in a shop. 3. I have gone through the order under challenge. That, respondent No.1 is the wife of petitioner is not disputed. Though paternity of respondent No.2 was not challenged in the counter statement, petitioner made an attempt in the course of the evidence to deny the same in the box which the court below met with the aid of Section 112 of the Evidence Act. In the circumstances proved in the R.P.(FC) No.181 of 2009 -: 2 :- case and the contention advanced by the petitioner while in the box, respondent No.1 is justified in living away from the petitioner. Moreover he has also not taken any steps to get the company of respondents. That apart, petitioner is bound to maintain respondent No.2 irrespective of the propriety of his custody with respondent No.1. Hence respondents are entitled to separate residence and maintenance. 4. So far as quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondents is concerned assuming that respondents did not adduce documentary evidence as to the employment and financial capacity of the petitioner, it is not shown that he is disabled from earning. Respondents were aged 30 and 8 years respectively, at the time when they sought maintenance from the petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- respectively. What is awarded is only Rs.800/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- to respondent No.2 which I am unable to think is excessive or beyond the paying capacity of the petitioner. There is no merit in the revision. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv