IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3832 of 2007() --------------------------------------------------- MC.4/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ANDROTH .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- ABUL FAZAL KODIVALAPPU, S/O. KANDILATHUPPURA HAMSA, KEECHERY, ANDROTT ISLAND. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.JALEEL SRI.THAVAMANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & STATE --------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABUL FAHAD THACHERY, S/O. ABDUL FAZAL KODIVALAPPU, KEECHERY,ANDROTT ISLAND, (MINOR REP. BY MOTHER RASEENA BEEGUM THACHERY) 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------- CRL.RP NO. 3832 OF 2007 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 ORDER -------- The revision petitioner is the father of the 1st respondent herein, who obtained an order of maintenance u/s.125 Cr.P.C at the rate of Rs. 650/- per month as per the order impugned in M.C No. 4 of 2007. The 1st respondent claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with an allegation that the 1st respondent is the son born to the revision petitioner in the matrimony and the revision petitioner was not providing anything for the maintenance of the 1st respondent. The revision petitioner admitted the status, but contended that he is devoid of any independent source of income and that he is only a student. However, he offered to pay @ Rs.300/-. The lower court on appraisal of the evidence of PW1, RW1 and Ext.P1 ordered that revision petition shall pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 650/- from the date of petition. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order this revision petition was filed. CRL.RP NO. 3832 OF 2007 2 3. Having heard either side and perusing the order impugned , I find little merit in this revision petition. The status of the 1st respondent is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that 1st respondent has any independent source of income or able to maintain himself. The revision petitioner being the father, he is liable to maintain the 1st respondent. The quantum of maintenance awarded is not at all exorbitant. It is on a lower side. There is no case that the revision petitioner is not healthy or that he is otherwise disabled to find out means to maintain the child. In the above circumstances no interference is warranted. The revision petitioner is devoid of any merit. Therefore it is dismissed. P.S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE pkk CRL.RP NO. 3832 OF 2007 3