IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 161 of 2008()
1. MANOJ KUMAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAKHI MANOJ KUMAR & ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :09/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
R.P.(FC) No. 161 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against an order passed
under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.1,300/- to the 1st claimant – wife, and Rs.1,200/-
per mensem to the 2nd claimant – minor son, from the date of
the petition.
2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is conceded. That
the petitioner is employed as a military personnel is also
admitted. The wife asserted that his income exceeds
Rs.15,000/- per mensem. On the contrary, he asserted that he
gets only an income of Rs.5,500/- per mensem. No better
documentary evidence was adduced. The 1st claimant/wife
asserted on oath the relevant facts. No evidence whatsoever
was adduced by the petitioner herein.
R.P.(FC) No. 161 of 2008 -: 2 :-
3. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these
circumstances, sailed to the conclusion that it was absolutely
safe to direct payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,300/-
and Rs.1,200/- per mensem respectively to the two claimants.
Accordingly, the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to
pass the impugned order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is aggrieved by the order. What is the grievance?
The short contention urged is that the quantum of maintenance
awarded is excessive. Less said about the contention, the
better. Even on his own showing the petitioner is a Havildar
employed in the Engineering Regiment. On his own assertion
he gets an income of Rs.5,500/- per mensem. The petitioner has
not chosen to make any better evidence available about the
quantum of his income. Reasonable inferences will have to be
drawn.
5. I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance directed
to be paid to the claimants cannot be said to be grossly and
perversely excessive or beyond the means of the petitioner who
even on his admission gets an income of Rs.5,500/- per mensem.
6. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is
absolutely no justification in the prayer for invocation of the
R.P.(FC) No. 161 of 2008 -: 3 :-
revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction against
the impugned order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the
petitioner may be given some further time to make the payment
of the arrears of maintenance. I am not persuaded to agree that
any directions need be issued. Needless to say, if the petitioner
deposits a substantial portion of the amount in arrears and prays
for further time, such request must be considered by the learned
Judge of the Family Court on merits and in accordance with law.
8. This revision petition is, in these circumstances,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge