IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 170 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.69/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- CYRIAC, S/O. CHUMMARKUTTY, AGED 45 YRS, NEERANAMTHOTTINGAL HOUSE, S.VALAVU, PONMUDI P.O., KONNATHADY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SHAJU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. MOLLY, D/O. THOMAS VARGHESE, AGED 41 YEARS, PUKUDIYIL HOUSE, 1000 ACRE, MANNAKANDAM P.O., VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, ADIMALI POLICE STATION. 2. SEEMOL, D/O. CYRIAC, AGED 15 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER MOLLY, PUKUDIYIL HOUSE, 1000 ACRE, MANNAKANDAM P.O., VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, ADIMALI POLICE STATION. 3. REEMOL @ RINCY, D/O. CYRIAC, AGED 15 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER MOLLY, PUKUDIYIL HOUSE, 1000 ACRE, MANNAKANDAM P.O., VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, ADIMALI POLICE STATION. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.MATHEW SKARIA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.(F.C.) No. 170 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a direction issued by the Family Court to the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- per month respectively to the claimants - his wife and children aged 15 and 10 years. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is conceded. The petitioner, admittedly, is not willing to take the claimants along with him and maintain them. In these circumstances, there can be no worthwhile contention against the liability of the petitioner to pay maintenance to the claimants. He, admittedly, has some employment. He has no case that his wife and children are not unable to maintain themselves. In these circumstances, he has the liability to maintain the claimants under Section 125 Cr.P.C. R.P.F.C.No.170/07 : 2 : 3. What then the contest? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The amount awarded is Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- respectively to the claimants. The 3rd claimant child is driven to take shelter in an orphanage and the child is now residing in the orphanage. Considering the fact that the mother has relatively lesser responsibility in respect of that child only an amount of Rs.300/- is awarded as monthly maintenance. In any view of the matter, the award of the total maintenance of Rs.1,800/- cannot be said to be excessive. 4. The only contention of the petitioner is that he has no sufficient means to pay the amount. The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered those aspects in detail. The claimants asserted that the petitioner has landed property. There was no evidence in support of that offer. The family court noted that the petitioner had admitted that he has an employment. He did not give any details of the income that R.P.F.C.No.170/07 : 3 : he gets from such employment in the counter statement. In court, on oath, he said that he is working as a painter and he has no employment in any establishment. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, the learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the amounts of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- per month respectively to the claimants would be absolutely just, fair and reasonable. 5. I must say that I have no reason to disagree with the learned Judge of the Family Court. The amount awarded does appear to me to be absolutely reasonable. The same is in tune with the needs of the claimants and the means of the petitioner. If it suffer from any defect, it is only that it is not sufficient to discharge the duty of maintaining the wife and children of the petitioner. I am in these circumstances, satisfied that this revision is without any merit and does only deserve to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the claim for arrears of maintenance were executed R.P.F.C.No.170/07 : 4 : straightaway, the petitioner will suffer great prejudice, hardship and loss. It is for the petitioner to appear before the Family Court and offer to pay substantial amounts and pray for time to pay the balance amount. I have no reason to assume the learned Judge will not consider the said request in accordance with law and with compassion. No further specific directions appear to be necessary. 7. This petition is hence dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks