IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 82 of 2008() --------------------- MC.552/2006 of Family Court, Palakkad. .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.VISHALAKSHIVARASIYAR, PERANJATH VARIYATH, PERUMBADARI DESOM, ARAKKURUSSI AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------- 1. PRABHAVATHY, D/O. PADMAVATHY VARASIYAR, ERUMBALASERY VARIYATH, EZHUVANTHALA AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. SREEKALA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, PRABHAVATHY, ERUMBALASSERY VARIYATH, EZHUVANTHALA AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.82 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C at the rate of Rs.1,250/- and Rs.750/- per mensum respectively. The wife is aged 28 years. The child is aged 5 years. Marriage is admitted. Paternity and separate residence are also admitted. That the petitioner has undergone some form of second marriage is admitted though it is contended that he did not go through the formalities with his consent and willingly. The wife and the child claim to be unable to maintain themselves. There is no specific assertion contra. The petitioner contended that he is not a person having sufficient means and he cannot pay the amounts claimed. 2. The parties went to trial on these contentions. The first claimant/wife examined herself. The petitioner filed a proof affidavit which was not properly signed and executed. He faced cross-examination on that proof affidavit. But the learned Judge, later found that it was not a proper proof affidavit. Opportunity R.P.F.C.No.82/08 2 was given to cure the defect. It was not cured. The learned Judge of the Family Court then proceeded to pass the impugned order directing payment of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The short contention urged is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. He has a further contention that his evidence was eschewed unjustifiably. I shall reckon that the evidence was eschewed not properly and that the same can be reckoned as valid evidence adduced by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the only contention that now remains is about the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid. I shall ignore all disputes about the precise quantum of income earned by the petitioner. He may be a rubber tapper or he may be only a person doing kazhakam work in a temple. In any view of the matter, there is absolutely nothing to show that he does not have the requisite physical health. He is obliged to work to earn his livelihood. He is supposed to maintain himself and also his wife and child. Even reckoning him as a person who has only his physical body at his command to earn his livelihood, R.P.F.C.No.82/08 3 I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded can, by no stretch of imagination, be held to be excessive, unreasonable or perverse as to persuade this court to invoke its revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with such order. In any view of the matter, the impugned order does not, therefore, warrant any interference. 4. This revision petition is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.82/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.82/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008