IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 337 of 2009()
1. N.JAYASANKAR, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.P.PUSHAPA, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. MOHAN JAYASANKAR (MINOR),
3. ASHA JAYASANKAR (MINOR),
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :09/09/2009
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
----------------------------------------
R.P.(F.C.)No.337 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.181 of
2008, a petition under section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure.
The respondents herein are the wife and children of the revision
petitioner. Seeking an order to pay separate maintenance, the
above petition was prefered by the respondents. The lower court
after due enquiry, by a common order in O.P.No.494/2008 &
M.C.No.181/2008 dated 1/6/2009 allowed the petition in part.
The prayer for maintenance to the first respondent was
disallowed. Whereas maintenance to respondents 2 and 3 was
ordered at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each per month. Assailing the
legality, correctness and propriety of that order this revision
petition was prefered. The following are the grounds urged in
revision memorandum;-
1. The judgment of the court below to the extent
it is sought to be revised is against law, weight
of evidence, incorrect, etc.
2. The court below ought to have found that the
first respondent is paid a sum of Rs.7,11,000/-
by the revision petitioner for the maintenance
R.P.(F.C.)No.337 of 2009
2
of the children and it has come out in
evidence that this fact is true.
3. The Family Court ought to have ordered
adjustment of Rs.7,11,000/-, the amount
entrusted with the first respondent by
the revision petitioner for the maintenance
of the children against his liability under
the impugned judgment.
2. The revision petitioner is not at all assailing the
correctness of the maintenance awarded or the quantum
thereon. But his case is one for adjustment of the amount said to
have been already deposited in the name of the first respondent.
It is seen that petitioner has not applied before the lower court
for making any such adjustment. So, there is no order also. In
the above circumstances I find no merit in this revision petition.
Hence it is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner to urge
his contention, if any, before the trial court, which shall dispose
such application, if any filed on merits.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
skj.