IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 246 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.285/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- MELAYIPARAMBATH ABBAS, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. POKKER HAJI, MUTHUVANNACHA AMSOM, PURAVOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------- AREEKAL HASEENA, D/O. MOIDU, AGED 24 YEARS, P.O.MUTHUVANNACHA, MUTHUVANNACHA AMSOM, KOONIYEDATH DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.RENI RASHEED THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.(F.C.) No. 246 OF 2006 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month to the claimant, his wife aged about 23 years. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. That the claimant wife is unemployed and is unable to maintain herself is not disputed. That the petitioner was employed abroad is accepted. It is contended that he has left his employment abroad and has come back to India. The only contention raised is that the petitioner has no employment or income. 2. The parties examined themselves as PW 1 and RW 1. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered the evidence. That the petitioner had married again and is residing with the 2nd wife is also not disputed. It was, in these circumstances, that the learned Judge notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific evidence about the R.P.F.C.No.246/06 : 2 : employment or income of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that even reckoning him as an able bodied and healthy person only, he is bound to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month to his wife. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance and what is the challenge? The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is excessive. I have been taken through the relevant discussions in paragraph 9 of the order passed by the Family Court. It is only reasonable to assume that the petitioner will be in a position to work and earn his livelihood even reckoning him as just an able bodied person. I am of the opinion that the court below was eminently justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/-. Considering the materials available about the needs of the claimant and the probable income of the petitioner, such direction appears to me to be eminently reasonable and the said direction does not at any R.P.F.C.No.246/06 : 3 : rate deserve or warrant revisional interference. The challenge against the impugned direction must hence fail. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is afflicted with tuberculosis later on - after the passing of the orders and, therefore, the quantum of maintenance deserves to be reduced. It is not necessary for me to consider that contention in any detail. It is certainly for the petitioner, if his assertions be correct, to move the court below for appropriate modification of the order passed under section 125 Cr.P.C. It is submitted then that such an application is already pending. I need only mention that the learned Magistrate must dispose of such application on merits. I do not intend to express any opinion on merits about the sustainability of that contention. That claim shall be disposed of on merits on the evidence that it is made available before the court below. This revision is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks