IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 RPFC.No. 25 of 2001() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN M.C.NO.366/1999 OF Family Court, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------- BABU, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KANIYAN, VENGERI HOUSE, PANTHIRIKARA P.O., PERAMBRA PSL. PANTHIRIKARA AMSOM DESOM BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------- BINDU.N.K., AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.GOPALAN, NADUODIKUNI, P.O. PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE, THURAYOOR AMSOM DESOM BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.25 of 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C whereunder he is obliged to pay an amount of Rs.400/- per mensum to the claimant, his wife. 2. The marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. The petitioner raised a contention that he, a coolie, is not having sufficient means. He raised a further contention that the claimant is not unable to maintain herself. He took up a further plea that the claimant was residing separately without any justifiable cause. It was also contended that the quantum of maintenance claimed - at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensum is excessive. 3. The claimant had contended that the petitioner was guilty of matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety and that she is not, in these circumstances, willing to reside along with the petitioner herein. 4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined herself as PW1 and the petitioner herein R.P.F.C.No.25/01 2 examined himself as RW1. No documents were marked. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the claimant has succeeded in establishing her claim for separate maintenance. The court found that the claimant is unable to maintain herself and she is residing separately on account of matrimonial cruelty. It was further found that the petitioner was having sufficient means. He admittedly being a person, a coolie, getting an income of Rs.75/- to Rs.80/- per day. It was, in these circumstances, that the learned Judge proceeded to direct payment of an amount of Rs.400/- per mensum. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 5. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner only contends that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and that at any rate the award of Rs.400/- per mensum is not justified. 6. I am unable to find any merit in the challenge raised. I concur with the conclusions of the Family Court that the claimant is unable to maintain herself and that the petitioner having sufficient means has refused and neglected to maintain the claimant. On the R.P.F.C.No.25/01 3 admitted evidence of the claimant, he gets Rs.75/- to Rs.80/- per day from his employment as a coolie. In these circumstances, viewed from any angle, the direction to pay an amount of Rs.400/- is found to be absolutely justified. I find no merit in the challenge raised. 7. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.25/01 4 R.P.F.C.No.25/01 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No.25 of 2001 ORDER 21/05/2008