IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 363 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.822/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- THANARI IBRAHIM, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.THANARI ALAVIKUTTY, NEDUMPALLI HOUSE, THRIPPANACHI AMSOM, MUTHANOOR DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. NARIKKODAN HAFEETH, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.NARIKKODAN VEERANKUTTY, VELLIPPALATHINKAL HOUSE, TRIPPANACHI AMSOM, MUTHANOOR DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED UVAISE, AGED 14 YEARS, S/O THANARI IBRAHIM (MINOR) 3. JASEERA, AGED 12 YEARS, D/O THANARI IBRAHIM (MINOR) 4. FATHIMA UMAIRA, 7 YEARS, D/O THANARI IBRAHIM(MINOR)(MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 363 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this RP(FC) challenges an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.800/- and Rs.600/- per mensem respectively to the claimants – admittedly his wife and three minor children. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is conceded. The petitioner is employed abroad and no specific offer is seen made that the petitioner is willing to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with him. 3. What then is the contention? It is contended that there has been no refusal or neglect on the part of the petitioner. The wife and children reside in a building R.P.(FC) No. 363 of 2008 -: 2 :- belonging to the petitioner, it is submitted. That aspect is not disputed. The shelter by itself cannot enable a person to live exist and survive. The children are school going. The wife and the children need amounts for maintenance. Maintenance is not only residence. 4. The petitioner contends that the amount awarded is excessive. He further contends that there has been no refusal or neglect. In support of this plea, he placed reliance on Ext.B1 produced by him. 5. Ext.B1 does not disprove, neglect or refusal. That some amount has been paid during the pendency of the petition towards fees etc., of the minor children is not synonymous with the contention that there is no neglect or refusal. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the fact that even Ext.B1 shows that belatedly – long after the amounts became due, some payment was made by the petitioner herein. Ext.B1 cannot suggest or indicate, probabilise or prove the theory that there has been no refusal or neglect. 6. The main contention raised in this RP(FC) is that the amount of maintenance ordered is excessive. The petitioner is admittedly employed abroad. He was so employed abroad for some length of time, it is further evident. The maintenance is awarded only at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.800/- and R.P.(FC) No. 363 of 2008 -: 3 :- Rs.600/- per mensem respectively for the wife aged 32 years and children aged 14 years, 12 years and 7 years. I shall assume that the petitioner has provided for shelter/accommodation. But even then, I am unable to agree that the quantum of maintenance awarded is unreasonable, unjust or perverse as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I am not considering the question whether the amount of maintenance awarded is just, fair and reasonable from the angle of the claimants. If they choose to challenge the order, the same shall be considered then. The fact remains that, at any rate, the quantum of maintenance awarded does not warrant revisional interference at the instance of the petitioner herein notwithstanding the fact that shelter has been provided by the petitioner as claimed by him. I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded is absolutely fair, reasonable and just and does not, at any rate warrant interference at the instance of the petitioner. 7. This R.P.(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 363 of 2008 -: 4 :-