IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 186 of 2006()
1. C.A. ABDUL RAHIMAN @ ANDUNHI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REHMATH. M., RESIDING AT MASTER HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. AZARUDHIN, RESIDING AT MASTER HOUSE,
3. ASHFANA, RESIDING AT MASTER HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ANAND
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/09/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.(F.C).No. 186 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2006
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against an order directing
payment of maintenance to claimants 2 and 3 – minor children aged 6
years and 4 years of the petitioner – at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- and
Rs.750/- p.m.
2. The wife and children of the petitioner were the claimants.
The claim of the wife for maintenance was turned down by the
learned Judge of the Family Court. I am not going into the
justifiability of the rejection of that claim. The same can be
considered if and when the first claimant wife chooses to challenge
the order rejecting maintenance to her.
3. Paternity of claimants 2 and 3 is admitted. That they are
residing separately with the first claimant, their mother, is also
admitted. What then is the contention? The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner was willing to pay a total
R.P.(F.C).No. 186 of 2006 2
amount of Rs.1,250/- p.m. as maintenance to claimants 2 and 3. The court
below has not accepted the said offer and has instead directed
payment of maintenance of a total amount of Rs.1,750/- (Rs.1000 + 750) to
claimants 2 and 3. This is improper. This deserves interference by the
invocation of the revisional jurisdiction , it is contended.
4. About the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimants
we have the interested testimony of the first claimant, mother/PW1 on the
one side and the petitioner/respondent on the other. We have some
indications that the petitioner had undergone treatment and he was tested
positive for HIV. But as the court below rightly observed, no acceptable
medical evidence was tendered to show that the petitioner continues to
suffer from any disease. This will have to be read along with the offer
which the petitioner made before the Family court to pay an amount of Rs.
1,250/- as maintenance.
5. In any view of the matter, considering the evidence of PW1 and
RW1 as also Exts.P1 to P5, the quantum fixed by the court below cannot
by any stretch of imagination be held to suffer from any vice warranting
R.P.(F.C).No. 186 of 2006 3
invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of supervision and correction
vested in this court. The challenge on merits must hence fail.
6. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. I clarify again
that I have not considered the justifiability of the rejection of the claim of
the first claimant.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm