IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 87 of 2005() --------------------- MC.6/2003 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- KOMATH THAMASIKKUM NANKATH BASHEER, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KUNJABDULLA, KUMMANKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM & POST, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. ATHIKKUNI @ KANJIROLI THAZHEKUNI HABEEBA AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. KUNJAMMED MUSALAYAR, CHELAKKAD P.O., KUTTIPRAM AMSOM, DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. 2. UMMUHATHIYA, MINOR, AGED 10 YEARS, D/O. HABEEBA, CHELAKKAD P.O.,KUTTIPRAM AMSOM,DESOM VADAKARA. 3. SAKKRIYA, MINOR, AGED 5 YEARS, D/O. HABEEBA, CHELAKKAD P.O.,KUTTIPRAM AMSOM,DESOM VADAKARA TALUK. 4. FATHIMATHUL HISANA, MINOR, AGED 2 YEARS, D/O. HABEEBA, CHELAKKAD P.O.,KUTTIPRAM AMSOM,DESOM VADAKARA TALUK. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN/MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMED ALI FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.AYPE JOSEPH FOR R1 TO 4 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 87 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- Rs.750/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.750/- p.m. respectively to his wife and three minor children. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. That the petitioner had married again during the currency of the first marriage with the claimant/wife is also admitted. The petitioner has a case that the wife is residing separately because of her illicit relationship with another person. He, in these circumstances, disclaimed the liability to maintain his wife. 3. Before the Family Court the rival contestants tendered evidence as PW1 and RW1. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the claimant. No other evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent. R.P.F.C.No. 87 of 2005 2 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the fact that the allegation of unchaste behaviour remains unsubstantiated. The learned Judge further took note of the fact that the petitioner has admittedly remarried. In these circumstances the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for separate maintenance. 5. The dispute now raised before me is only about the quantum of maintenance payable to the claimant wife. The petitioner is employed abroad. No specific data about the income earned by him was placed before court. The wife asserted that he has an income of Rs.50,000/- Admittedly during the currency of the marriage with the claimant wife with three children born in the wedlock and knowing fully well of his financial obligations, the petitioner has voluntarily embraced the responsibility of a second marriage. There was a contention that the wife has an item of property measuring 17 cents. There is nothing to show that the wife actually gets any tangible income from the said property. The wife claimed that she does not take income from that property. I will assume that the wife has 17 R.P.F.C.No. 87 of 2005 3 cents of land in her name. But there is no tangible evidence to show that possession of and title over the said 17 cents of land can take her outside the sweep of the expression woman “unable to maintain herself.” In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the wife and children are absolutely justified. 6. There is absolutely no circumstance pointed out to me, which can persuade me to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction against the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court. The challenge in this revision petition does in these circumstances fail. 7. This revision petition is hence dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm