IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 316 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.34/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM,. .................... REV. PETITIONER (S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------ DASAN @ P.K. THANKAPPAN, ARAMPULICKAL HOUSE, EDAKARA.P.O, KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. K.V. RAJI @ KALYANI, D/O. BHARATHAN, KUTTIYANICKAL HOUSE, EDAKOLI KARA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ANUPAMA DURGA DEVI (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, IST RESPONDENT K.V. RAJI @ KALYANI. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 316 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has preferred this revision petition to assail an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor child at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensem and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. There is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. It is contended and accepted that the wife has a meager income from her employment as a scribe. The petitioner contended that he is not having sufficient means and that he is sick and is unable to earn his own livelihood. He has taken shelter in a destitute home, it was contended. 3. The claimant contended that the petitioner has properties and that he is employed as a Paster. No satisfactory R.P.(FC) No. 316 of 2008 -: 2 :- evidence was placed before court to show that the petitioner suffers from any such ailment which can persuade the court to hold that he is not an able bodied person. Taking into account the meager income of the wife which she derives from her activity as a scribe, the learned Judge of the Family Court directed payment of Rs.500/- per mensem to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the child. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? The short grievance raised is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and that considering his plight, he must have been held to be a person not having sufficient means and hence not liable to suffer an order under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. 5. I have anxiously considered the contentions raised. I have perused the impugned order. There is no satisfactory material which can persuade the court to come to the conclusion that the petitioner – the father of the minor child, is suffering from any such ailment that can deprive him of an opportunity to work and earn his livelihood. Though it is contended that he has taken shelter as a destitute in a destitute home, the contention of the claimant that he is employed as Paster is not seen seriously challenged or disproved. Be that as it may, even reckoning the R.P.(FC) No. 316 of 2008 -: 3 :- petitioner as a just able bodied person who has no disability or infirmity to work and earn his livelihood, I am satisfied that the impugned order is absolutely justified and does not warrant any interference. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has an item of property which he is prepared to assign to the claimants and that property measuring about 11 cents in the joint name of the parties would fetch handsome proceeds on sale. The petitioner can certainly sell that item of property and pay the amounts due to the claimants by making investment of that huge amount which he claims that he will get on sale of such property. At the stage of execution also, under Sec.125(3) Cr.P.C. he can point out that the amount can be recovered from such property. In any view of the matter, I am not at all persuaded that the impugned order warrants interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of supervision and correction. 7. This RP(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ R.P.(FC) No. 316 of 2008 -: 4 :-