IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 165 of 2004(E) ----------------------- MC.458/2003 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT; ------------------------------------------------ SURENDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, THURAKKAL HOUSE, PUNNATHALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: PETITIOENRS: ------------------------- 1. JESSY D/O.PREM NATH, KOOLERI HOUSE, NANNAMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SREERAG MINOR, REP. BY THE IST RESPONDENT MOTHER GUARDIAN. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.165 of 2004 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner challenges an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance @ Rs.750/- and Rs.600/- per mensem to his wife/1st claimant and to the 2nd claimant/child respectively. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. The petitioner/husband does not make an offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. According to her, separate residence was on account of the fact that he makes allegations of adultery against her. 3. In as much as the marriage and paternity are admitted and the husband does not offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him, the liability to pay maintenance to the wife and child cannot possibly disputed. The only remaining question is about the means of the petitioner and the inability of the claimant/wife to maintain herself. In the counter statement no contention has been raised that she has any employment or income. In the course of examination she admitted that she was formerly taking dance classes for students, but such income is not available now. It is significant that such a plea was not raised in R.P.F.C. No.165 of 2004 2 the counter statement. It is, in these circumstances, that the learn d Judge of the Family Court proceeded to issue direction to pay ma ntenance at the rates referred above. 4. The claimants asserted that the petitioner is employed as a photographer and is also a videographer. He stated that he is employed in a shop and is getting a daily income of Rs.50/- only. 5. Going by the version of the petitioner, he is employed. It is idle to expect any prudent mind to accept his assertion that he works for daily wages of Rs.50/-. Even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, the direction to pay maintenance @ Rs.750/- to the wife and Rs.600/- to his child cannot be faulted. The impugned order does not, in these circumstances, suffer from any such vice which warrants interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 3. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-