IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 257 of 2008 ---------------------- MC.208/2006 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEX BABY, S/O.BABY, MALIEYAL HOUSE @ VETTIKATTUMALIYEL HOUSE, KOTHALA KARA, KOOROPPADA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SUSAN ABRAHAM, D/O.ABRAHAM, THACHERIL HOUSE, MEENADOM KARA AND VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. AKSA MARIYA ALEX (MINOR), THACHERIL HOUSE, MEENADOM KARA AND VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== R.P.(F.C)NO. 257 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 ORDER Basant,J. This revision petition is directed against an order obliging the revision petitioner-husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem to his child. 2. The marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence of the child with its mother, i.e. wife of the petitioner is also admitted. The impugned order directs payment of maintenance to the child only. The petitioner is admittedly a driver by profession. He has property measuring 61 cents also. What then is the dispute which is to be agitated in this R.P.(F.C)? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The child, in the impugned order reveals, is aged five years. It is preposterous to assume that the amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem is excessive, judged RPFC.257/2008 -2- from the needs of the child. The only question to be decided is whether the quantum awarded is excessive considering the means of the petitioner. He is admittedly a driver. Though an apology of a contention is raised that he is ill and is unable to pursue his avocation, not a semblance of evidence is adduced in support of that assertion. We are in these circumstances satisfied that there is absolutely no merit in the revision petition. The same deserves to be dismissed. 3. We make it clear that we have only taken the view that the impugned order does not warrant interference at the instance of the petitioner. The option of the respondent to challenge the same, if such challenge is maintainable, will remain unfettered by the dismissal of the revision petition. 4. This Revision Petition is in these circumstances dismissed. We feel that our disapproval against such an unnecessary vexatious revision petition must be signified by an order directing payment of costs. We do in these circumstances direct the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- RPFC.257/2008 -3- (Rupees five thousand only) to the respondent. The same can be executed under Section 125 before the court below. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.