IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 118 of 2008()
1. KAVUNGAL ABDUL MAJEED,AGED 32 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MATTAN FATHIMABI,AGED 23 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. FASMILA, AGED 7 YEARS,(MINOR)
3. FASIL, AGED 3 YEARS, (MINOR)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :22/05/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
R.P.F.C.No.118 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of May 2008
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against an order passed
under Section 125 Cr.P.C to oblige the petitioner to pay monthly
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.700/- and Rs.500/-
respectively to his wife and two minor children.
2. Marriage and paternity are admitted. That the wife went
away to her house is also admitted. According to the wife,
matrimonial cruelty had compelled her to take up separate
residence. It is admitted that subsequent to the commencement of
the separate residence, the petitioner had married twice though he
hastens to add that he had divorced the two wives married in both
subsequent marriages. The petitioner claimed that he was
maintaining the claimants. The claimant/wife examined herself as
PW1 and the petitioner examined himself as RW1. The learned
Judge of the Family Court in these circumstances came to the
conclusion that the claimants are entitled for maintenance at the
rates indicated above. Accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to
pass the impugned order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by
the impugned order.
R.P.F.C.No.118/08 2
3. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the claimants are now residing along with
the petitioner in the same house. There is absolutely nothing to
justify this contention though it is pointed out that the address of
the petitioner shown is the same as the address of the respondent.
Be that as it may, even assuming that they are sharing the same
roof, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is making
payments and amounts for the maintenance of the claimants. In
these circumstances, even the alleged fact that the estranged
couple share the same roof cannot justify the claim for absolution
from the liability under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The only other question
is about the quantum of maintenance awarded. Rs.1,000/- per
mensum to the wife aged 23 years and Rs.700/- and Rs.500/-
respectively for the children aged 6 years and 3 years on the date of
the petition is found to be absolutely justified and consistent with
the evidence available about the needs of the claimants and the
means of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the quantum
awarded does not also warrant interference by invoking the
revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction.
4. This revision petition is in these circumstances
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
R.P.F.C.No.118/08 3
R.P.F.C.No.118/08 4
R.BASANT, J
R.P.F.C.No.
ORDER
11/02/2008
