IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 RPFC.No. 252 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.120/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITONER/RESPONDENTS: -------------------- AJESH JOHN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, KADAVANATHIL HOUSE, R/at NEELIRINGA, PADIYOTTUCHAL.P.O, VAYAKKARA VILLAGE, THALIPPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SHEENA @ MARY.K.J, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.JOSEPH KANDATHINKARA 2. BABY ALEENA, AGED 2 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER SHEENA @ MARY.K.J., R/AT PAVAL, KADUMENI, CHITTARICKAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC FOR R1 & 2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.)No.252 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.120 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Kazaragode. The respondents herein who are the wife and daughter of the revision petitioner instituted the above petition before the trial court under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,500/- respectively, with a plea that the revision petitioner neglected the respondents. First respondent had also a case that she was physically and mentally assaulted by the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner took up a defence that the assault alleged is not true and that she was behaving hysterically even on slightest provocations and that the first respondent was suffering mental disorder. After treatment she had gone her home. There after she refused to return and that revision petitioner is not liable to give separate maintenance and that he is only a manual labour and had to look after his aged and ailing parents. R.P.(F.C.)No.252 of 2009 2 3. On the side of the respondents, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner RWs.1 to 4 were examined. 4. The lower court on appraisal of the evidence repelled the contentions urged by the revision petitioner and arrived a finding that the respondents are entitled to get separate maintenance. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.500/- respectively were awarded. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. 5. The status of the respondents was not at all disputed. The liability of the revision petitioner to maintain the respondents was also not disputed. Advocate Sri.M.Saseendran representing learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the revision petitioner is only a manual labour and he had to maintain his aged and ailing parents and that the quantum awarded by the trial court is excessive and it is beyond the means of the revision petitioner. 6. The amount awarded, if calculated per day, would come to Rs.66.66. The price of essential commodities is very R.P.(F.C.)No.252 of 2009 3 high. Coolies are getting better wages. At any rate it is not less than Rs.150/- per day. Even at that rate without any effort the revision petitioner can easily make out the maintenance now ordered. It is not beyond the means of the revision petitioner. Having taking into account of the price index of the essential commodities and requirements, I find that the quantum awarded by the trial court is not at all exorbitant. It is also not beyond the means of the revision petitioner. I find no error in the order impugned so as to interfere in exercise of the revisional powers. In the result, the revision petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.