IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 312 of 2008() -------------------------------- M.C. NO.843/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .... REVISION PETITIONER/ PETITIONER : -------------------------------- KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, 'SREESADAN', CHATHAKUNNATH, SANKARAMANGALAM P.O., VALLUR DESOM, NETHIRIMANGALAM AMSOM OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. AMBIKA DEVI, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. KUNHILAKSHMI AMMA (LATE), NEDUMBRAKKATTUKUNNATH, VALLUR DESOM,. NETHIRIMANGALAM AMSOM OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. SREELA (MINOR), D/O. AMBIKA DEVI, -DO- -DO- 3. ASWATHY (MINOR) E/O.AMBIKA DEVI, (RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SALIM P.A. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.312 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per mensum to his two minor daughters aged 16 years and 14 years respectively from the date of the petition that is 19/12/2006. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. That the petitioner is employed abroad is also conceded. Thus the only and the short question arises for consideration was the quantum of maintenance that is liable to be paid by the petitioner to the claimants- minor children. The court below fixed an amount of Rs.4,000/- per mensum to the two children who, going by the age, have hardly two years and four years more to claim maintenance before they attain majority as seen from their age as on the date of the application that is 19/12/2006. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 2. How is the amount excessive? The court below has taken note of a specific admission made by the petitioner that an amount of Rs.10,000/- per mensum on an average used to be R.P.F.C.No.312/08 2 sent for the maintenance of the children. The learned counsel admits that though earlier, the petitioner employed abroad was under fairly affluent circumstances, his income has now dropped and he now gets only an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensum . Less said about the said plea the better. The same has not been substantiated at all. It has not been shown to be probable even. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the court below does warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The petitioner has admittedly been employed abroad for a number of years. The depositions have been read over to me. The wife, of course, had to concede that her information about the income of the petitioner is based on the data collected by her while they were together. The petitioner admitted that large amounts used to be sent by him and properties have been purchased. Towards maintenance, as stated earlier, an amount of Rs.10,000/- per mensum used to be sent. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction does not deserve to be invoked. 3. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.312/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.312/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008