IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 154 of 2007() ---------------------- M.C.NO.364/2006 OF Family Court, MALAPPURAM : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- K.VINOD, S/O.E.MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS, R.M.NIVAS, KAPPIL, THEKKUMPADAM, WANDOOR AMSOM, KAPPIL DESOM, P.O.KAPPIL, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. BEENA @ THANKAMANI, D/O.EDAYADATHODI VELU NAIR @ KUTTAN NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS, VANDOOR PUTHAN VEETTIL(MELEMADAM), WANDOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.WANDOOR,MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. ANJITHA, 7 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O.BEENA @ THANKAMANI, VANDOOR PUTHAN VEETTIL, (MELEMADAM), WANDOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ANJANA, 4 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O.BEENA @ THANKAMANI, VANDOOR PUTHAN VEETIL, (MELEMADAM), WANDOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT). BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.154 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C to the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.800/- per mensum respectively to his wife aged 29 years and minor children aged 7 years and 4 years respectively. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is conceded. Claim for divorce filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Family Court. An appeal is pending. That is not very relevant because, at any rate, there is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. That is the only relevant aspect in this petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Though adultery was alleged, no evidence is adduced in support of the said plea of adultery. There was a contention raised that the wife is employed and she is not a woman unable to maintain herself. No satisfactory material is adduced in support of that plea also. 2. The only real question that arose for consideration before the Family Court was the quantum of maintenance that R.P.F.C.No.154/07 2 was liable to be paid. The petitioner is admittedly employed as a U.D.Clerk in the Government Technical High School at Manjeri. Certificate was produced which shows that his total monthly income is Rs.8,190/-. Of course, he has a contention that there are several deductions to the G.P.F, L.I.C. etc. These are not very relevant and what is crucially relevant is the total earnings. Total liability which the petitioner has under the impugned order is only Rs.3,800/- per mensum. 3. Considering the nature of evidence available about the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimants, it can, by no stretch of imagination, be held that the quantum fixed by the court below is incorrect, improper or perverse as to warrant invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. It follows that this revision petition is without any merit and only deserves to be dismissed. I do so. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.154/07 3 R.P.F.C.No.154/07 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008