IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 125 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.208/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- SANTHOSHKUMAR, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 34 YEARS, MATTUMANTHA, C.N.PURAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS : PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. JAYALAKSHMI, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O RAJAN, KALARIKKAL VEEDU, KOCHAMKULAM, THENKURISSI AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 2. SREERAJ, AGED 10 MONTHS(MINOR), S/O JAYALAKSHMI.(2ND RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT) ADV. SRI.C.K.PRASAD FOR R1-2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C No.125 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 ORDER BASANT, J. The revision petitioner has suffered an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per mensem to the 1st claimant/wife and Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the 2nd claimant/minor child. 2. The marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. There is no contention raised before us that the separate residence is not justified. 3. What then is the dispute and contention ? The learned counsel for the revision petitioner only contends that the quantum of maintenance fixed is excessive. 4. We have heard both counsel. We find absolutely no merit in this contention. Oath against oath of the rival contestants alone is available. Ext.D1 letter received by the revision petitioner from his bank is also produced to show that he has liabilities to the bank. Admittedly he was running Mascot Surgical Equipments. Though he contends that he had discontinued that business and is now working only as an employee of that establishment, there is not a scintilla of R.P.F.C No.125 of 2008 2 evidence produced in support of this assertion. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court is absolutely justified and the same does not warrant interference at all invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction vested in this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the quantum of maintenance fixed is insufficient and that the same, at any rate, deserves upward modification now. No challenge has been raised against the impugned order. If warranted by change of circumstances, an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C for modification of the quantum of maintenance can be filed. In this revision petition the unchallenged quantum awarded already cannot be enhanced. 6. This Revision Petition is thus found to be without any merit and the same is dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-