IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 RPFC.No. 238 of 2010() ---------------------- MC.273/2009 on the file of the Family court, Kozhikode .................... REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------- A.P.SREEJITH LAL, S/O.A.P.KRISHNANKUTTY, "SREE", CHANARI PARAMBA, MAKKADA AMSOM, MORIKKARA DESOM,KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT: --------------- N.K.SREEBALA, D/O.ANANDAN, KOVILAKKANDI HOUSE,PADINHATTUMURI AMSOM DESOM, KAKKODI P.O.,KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== R.P.(FC) NO. 238 OF 2010 ============================ DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2010 ORDER Basant,J. This R.P.(FC) has been sent over to this court only for the reason that it is connected with Mat Appeal Nos.478 & 479 of 2010. In all these three proceedings before this court, the husband is the appellant/revision petitioner. His wife is the respondent. 2. Solemnisation of marriage is admitted. The revision petitioner/husband sought a declaration of nullity of marriage. That prayer has been rejected and against that the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The wife is not employed and is unable to maintain herself. On that aspect, there is no quarrel. The husband is employed. He is the Managing Partner of a firm. 3. The wife had claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As stated earlier, the marriage and separate residence are admitted. The husband is employed and the wife is not. In these circumstances, there can hardly be any worthwhile dispute RPFC 238/2010 -2- on their liability for payment of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. What then is the dispute? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that declaration of nullity of marriage is claimed. Solemnisation of marriage is admitted and liability for payment of maintenance must continue until such date that the marriage is declared to be null and void, if at all it is so declared. There can hence be no question of any dispute regarding payment of maintenance because of the pendancy of the appeal against dismissal of the claim for declaration of nullity of marriage. If ultimately in the Mat appeal, the revision petitioner/husband succeeds his liability for payment of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be suitably altered/modified by a proper application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 5. The only other dispute is about the quantum. Considering the indications available in evidence about the means of the revision petitioner/husband and the needs of the 25 year old wife, we are satisfied that the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per mensem does not at all warrant interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of RPFC 238/2010 -3- superintendence and correction vested in this Court. At any rate, the impugned order does not warrant interference at the instance of the revision petitioner. 6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE