IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 296 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.503/2007 of Family Court, Malappuram .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------- PARAPPURATH HUSSAIN, S/O.MUHAMMED, PARAPPURATH VEEDU, ARIPRA, RAMAPURAM.P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS: ------------- 1. PUTHANPURAKKAL SABIRA, D/O.KUNHALAVI, NEMMINI, THACHINGANADAM P.O., PATTIKKAD VIA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. FATHIMATHU NAJIYA, D/O.PARAPURATH HUSSAIN, MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER FIRST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.296 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September 2008 O R D E R This R.P.F.C is filed by the petitioner to assail an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the Family Court obliging him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1,250/- to his wife aged 23 years and Rs.750/- to his minor child aged one year. 2. Marriage, paternity, separate residence are all admitted. It is categorically admitted that subsequent to the separate residence, the petitioner has contracted another marriage also. There is no specific offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. 3. Thus the only question was one of quantum of maintenance payable. The claimant/wife tendered evidence that the petitioner gets an income of Rs.10,000/- per mensum and he has landed properties. The petitioner admitted his employment as a Madrassa teacher. But according to him he was getting only an income of Rs.1,500/- per mensum. No specific evidence in support of this improbable assertion was made available. However, he made a categoric admission that his work as a R.P.F.C.No.296/08 2 Madrassa teacher occupies only two hours every day and the remaining 22 hours are available to him. It is idle to assume that he does not earn any income by engaging himself profitably during this long period. It would be idle to assume that he gets only an income of Rs.1,500/- per mensum. To add to this circumstance to the broad probability that he must have been sufficient income to persuade himself to shoulder the responsibility to maintain one more wife, he having contracted another marriage also. The quantum of maintenance awarded is only Rs.1,250/- to the wife and Rs.750/- to the child. Even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person such direction is absolutely fair, reasonable and just. In any view of the matter, it does not warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.296/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.296/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008