IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 127 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.27/2005 of Family Court, Kalpetta .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------- P.GANESAN,S/O.LATE PARAMESWAR IYYAR, SANKARA BHAVANAM,PADA SOUTH,KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SRI.ESWAR G.P, AGE 13 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SMT.KALAVATHI M.R, SOUPARNIKA NIVAS, P.W.D OFFICE ROAD, P.O KALPETTA, KALPETTA. ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU FOR R1 SMT.RASHMI RAMESH FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.127 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner against whom a direction under Section 125 Cr.P.C has been issued to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensum to his minor child aged 11 years has come before this court to challenge that direction. 2. Paternity is admitted. There is no contention that the child is able to maintain itself. There is no contention that any amount has been paid towards maintenance or that there is no neglect or refusal. The only possible contention to assail the impugned order is that the quantum of maintenance fixed is excessive. The wife had claimed maintenance. That claim was rejected. The wife does not appear to have chosen to challenge that order. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the claimant/minor child does not warrant interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. No other contentions are urged. 3. This R.P.F.C. is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 2 R.P.F.C./Tr.P.C.No. 3 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008