IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 445 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.104/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- SAIDALAVI,S/O. KUTTAKADAVAN MUHAMMED KUTTY,PUTHIYAPRAMBIL HOUSE, VARAPPARA, PO, PARAMBIL PEEDIKA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.K,.ABDUL HAKEEM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. PATHUMMU, D/O. ERANHIKKAL MADARI HAJI MUNNIYOOR, ALINCHODE P.O.THIROORANGADI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THASLEENA-MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER GUARDIAN, THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.445 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- per mensum to the claimant, admittedly his child aged about 15 years, a student of the Plus One class at the time of filing the petition. 2. Paternity is admitted. Liability to maintain the claimant is not disputed. That the petitioner is employed abroad is again not disputed. That he is employed abroad for the past more than one decade is also not disputed. Divorced wife, that is the mother of the child, took the witness stand and asserted that the claimant is earning an amount of Rs.30,000/-. There is no worthwhile material to challenge this evidence. The petitioner who was employed abroad, did not examine himself. His power of attorney holder was examined, who frankly admitted that he is not in a position to deny the assertion that the respondent is drawing Rs.30,000/- per month. Though the petitioner had raised a contention that he has the responsibility to look after his R.P.F.C.No.445/07 2 sister, RW1, the power of attorney holder, on oath admitted that they have no sisters and that the statement in the counter statement that his brother is looking after his sister is false. It was also admitted that there were three sons for his mother - all adult persons. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, realistically assessed and evaluated the materials available and came to the conclusion that the claimant/daughter on the verge of attaining majority is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,500/- per mensum. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain the plank on which the petitioner wants to challenge the impugned order. It is submitted that the only ground on which the petitioner wants to challenge the order is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. How is it excessive? The wife had asserted that he was getting an income of Rs.30,000/-. It is admitted that he is employed abroad and he was there for a period exceeding one decade. Not a semblance of material is placed before court to R.P.F.C.No.445/07 3 show that he is getting any income less than Rs.30,000/-. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge of the Family Court was eminently justified in accepting and acting upon that assertion of PW1, which was not denied by RW1 in evidence. In any view of the matter, therefore, the quantum of maintenance fixed cannot be said to be excessive. The exercise of discretion on this aspect by the learned Judge of the Family Court does appear to be eminently reasonable, fair and just. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be insisted that the records are called for. The matter has been admitted by another Bench of this court; but records have not been called for. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when revisional powers are exercised under Section 401 Cr.P.C, it is essential and invariable that the records must be called for. 6. I am unable to agree. In a case where records are necessary, the same certainly has to be called for. But when there is no contention raised which obliges the court to call for the records and consider the same, it is idle and unnecessary to wait for records to come. There is no semblance of a contention R.P.F.C.No.445/07 4 that any statement in the impugned order is factually incorrect. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to wait for the records to come to dispose of this case. Waiting for the records cannot be an empty ritual. A court has to imbibe the sense of expedition when it comes to consider orders passed under benevolent provisions like Section 125 Cr.P.C which is to help the hapless claimants to keep the bolt away from the door. I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order suffers from any vice which would justify or warrant the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 7. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.445/07 5 R.P.F.C.No.445/07 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008