IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 420 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2007 IN OP. 360 /2006 IN MC.369/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- MUHAMMEDKUTTY,S/O. KUNHAHAMMED HAJI MUNNAYIKKATTIL HOUSE, KANHIRAKKOLE P.O. THEKKEN KUTTUR, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SAKEENA,D/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY KARIKAPARA HOUSE, P.O. PUNNATHALA, TIRUR TALUK. 2. JAMALUDHEEN 6 1/2 YEARS, (MINOR) (MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT) BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 420 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has suffered an order directing payment of maintenance under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and 800/- respectively per mensem to his wife and child. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. Allegation of unchaste behaviour was raised by the petitioner against his wife. The learned Judge of the Family Court found that the claimants are entitled for separate maintenance. The petitioner was employed abroad for a period of 12 years. The quantum of maintenance was fixed taking into account all the circumstances. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned R.P.(FC)No. 420 of 2007 -: 2 :- order. What is the grievance? The short contention that is urged before me is that the quantum of maintenance fixed is excessive. The court below has adverted to this aspect in detail. In para-17 of the impugned order, we get the relevant discussion on this aspect. The petitioner was employed abroad for 12 years. He has consciously undertaken the financial obligation to marry three women and children through them. The learned Judge took note of the relevant circumstances and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.800/- respectively to the claimants. Going by the materials available about the needs of the claimants and the means of the petitioner, the quantum fixed cannot be held to be perverse or excessive as to justify interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 3. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC)No. 420 of 2007 -: 3 :-