IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 139 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.327/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... : PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- K.B.MANI @ MANIKANDAN, S/O.BALASUBRAMANIAN, THODAPPAM HOUSE, KAVILPAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. R.UMA, W/O.MANIKANDAN, MADHAVA NAGAR, VADKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 2. SREELAKSHMI, D/O.MANIKANDAN (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE FIRST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F(C). No.139 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this Revision Petition challenges an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,250/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively to his wife and child. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. Though there are rival versions to explain the separate residence of the claimant/wife from the petitioner/husband, there is no offer made by the petitioner/husband to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. In these circumstances it is unnecessary to embark on an enquiry about the circumstances under which the wife is residing separately. 3. The challenge now is only regarding the quantum of maintenance payable. The amounts of Rs.1,250/- and Rs.1,000/- have been directed to be paid. The petitioner has an employment in a bakery at Kochi. According to the claimant, in evidence the petitioner gets an amount of Rs.6,000/- per mensem. It is pointed out that earlier in the petition, she had only asserted that he gets R.P.F(C). No.139 of 2008 2 an amount of Rs.4,000/- per mensem. That petition was filed in 2006 and the matter was disposed of only in 2008. 4. The quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is only Rs.1,250/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively per mensem to the wife, aged 23 years and the child aged 6 years. The petitioner is shown to have a stable employment. For obscure reasons the petitioner has not chosen to produce any documents to show the precise income that he gets from such stable employment of his. 5. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is absolutely reasonable and consistent with the evidence available about the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimant. In these circumstances, the quantum does not warrant interference. 6. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- R.P.F(C). No.139 of 2008 3