IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 348 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.2/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVN.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- CHINKORE MUNEER, S/O. MOIDEEN BAVA, OTTUMMAL BEACH, P.O.PARAPPANANGADI, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------------------ MUDAYAMPULAKKAL SAIFUNNEESA, D/O. ABDUL BARI MEENEDATH, ULLANAM P.O., PARAPPANANGADI VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC)No. 348 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 ORDER The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order directing payment of maintenance under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. to the claimant – his wife aged 22 years. 2. Marriage is admitted. In the box, there is a categoric declaration that he is not prepared to take the wife and does not want to take the wife and the baby born during the pendency of the proceedings back. There is no contention that the wife has any means or that she is not unable to maintain herself. 3. The only ground on which the impugned order is assailed is that the amount ordered to be paid is excessive. An amount of Rs.2,500/- has been directed to be paid. The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the question of means in detail in para-7 of the impugned order. The R.P.(FC)No. 348 of 2007 -: 2 :- learned Judge has taken note of the unambiguous admission that he saves an amount of Rs.50/- per day after all expenses for himself and his family. In the cross-examination, he made more important admission about his income and the nature of work that he does. Considering the inputs which have been adverted to in detail in para-7 of the impugned order, I am of opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any such vice as to justify or warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say that all the amounts deposited as per the order dated 23/8/07 passed by this Court shall forthwith be released to the claimant. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge