IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 26 of 2008() --------------------- MC.138/06 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ ASHRAF.K.A., S/O.ABDUL KHADAR, PARAYIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, CHAMANPATHAL P.O., VAZHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.MINI ELIZABETH GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JASSILA, D/O.BASHEER, THEKKANATHU VEEDU, CHIRAKADAVU P.O., CHIRAKADAVU VILLAGE. 2. RASHEED (MINOR), DO. REPRESENTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.F.C. No. 26 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner in this revision petition challenges the order passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- and Rs.500/- per month respectively to the claimants, admittedly, his wife and child. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is conceded. No objection has been filed and there is no specific offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to a specific query of this Court, submits that the claimant wife had gone away without any justification and, therefore, the petitioner is not now willing to take her along with him. 2. Be that as it may, what then is the contention raised? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that RPFC.26/08 : 2 : the petitioner had raised the contention that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. She is a tailor. She does work at home and earns her livelihood. Therefore, she cannot be reckoned as unable to maintain herself. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is conceded that he is having no employment or income to pay the maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. These are the contentions raised. 3. The claimant examined herself as PW1 and proved Ext.A1 marriage certificate. The petitioner did not file any counter statement and did not adduce any evidence. It is in these circumstances, the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to issue the direction to pay Rs.750/- and Rs.500/- per month respectively as maintenance to the wife and child. 4. Though the contention is raised that the petitioner is unable to pay maintenance, no evidence is adduced in support of that theory. The petitioner claims to be not having sufficient means. In law he is bound to work to earn his livelihood and support his wife and child. RPFC.26/08 : 3 : 5. The quantum of maintenance awarded is meagre and sparse - an amount of Rs.750/- and Rs.500/- respectively for the wife and child. 6. No other contentions are raised. I am satisfied that this revision petition is not sustainable. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks