IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 215 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.293/2003 OF FAMILY COURT AT ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- P.C. SIDHARDHAN, S/O. CHENNAN, AGED 50 YRS. PALLATHU PARAMBIL VEEDU, PONJIKKARA MULAVUKADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB SRI.PEARL K.DAVIS SRI.I.K.RAJU SRI.K.R.MURALI SRI.AJITH.K.M. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. MRS. VINODHINI SIDHARDHAN W/O. SIDHARDHAN, AGED 40 YRS. RESIDING AT CHITTETHU HOUSE CHIRAKKAKAM, VARAPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. AISWARYA, D/O. P.C. SIDHARDHAN, AGED 10 YRS MINOR, REP. BY HER NEXT FRIEND & GUARDIAN MRS. VINODHINI SIDHARDHAN. DO DO. 3. ASWINI, D/O. P.C. SIDHARDHAN, AGED 5 YRS. MINOR, DO.. DO BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAIDU MUHAMMED FOR R1 TO 3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 215 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the claimants, his wife and children. (Total Rs.3,000/- p.m.) 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. Paternity of one child born during the valid matrimony is disputed, but that controversy has also been put to an end by a DNA test conducted during the pendency of the case before the Family Court. A contention was raised that the wife is employed and is not unable to maintain herself. In the absence of evidence that contention was rejected. There is no offer to maintain the wife. Cruelty is writ large in the false denial of paternity itself. Virtually the dispute is only with regard to the quantum of maintenance which is payable. 2. The petitioner has a stable employment. He is a telephone mechanic in the BSNL. He is getting a gross income R.P.F.C.No. 215 of 2008 2 of about Rs.11,000/- But according to him that is his gross income and the carry home salary would be only about Rs.6,729/- I will accept everything that is stated by the petitioner about his income. I am satisfied that in any view of the matter the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid does not warrant interference at all. The amount awarded is consistent with the indications available about the needs of the claimants as also the means of the petitioner. If the impugned order suffers from any defect, to my mind, it is only that the amount awarded is not sufficient and is not consistent with the evidence available about the income of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the respondents having not preferred any challenge, I am satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant revisional interference. 3. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm