IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 1458 of 2007()
1. N.M. ASEES, S/O.NELLIKATTA MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASMINA A.N., AGED 5 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. MOHAMMED AFSALUL HAQ A.N.,
3. N.A. NASIMA, AGED 26 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :23/05/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO. 1458 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent direction
to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem to his
two children under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Paternity is admitted. That the children are residing
with their mother is also not disputed. The marriage has
ended in divorce. The children, through their mother,
claimed maintenance alleging that the petitioner – their
father, is refusing and neglecting to maintain them. They
claimed an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensem.
3. The petitioner resisted the claim for maintenance of
the children on the ground that the quantum of maintenance
claimed is excessive. An amount of Rs.750/- per mensem per
child was directed to be paid as interim maintenance. The
petitioner did not pay the amount. The petitioner did not
CRL.M.C.NO. 1458 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
appear before the learned Magistrate. It is, in these
circumstances, that the petitioner was set ex parte. The mother
of the children was examined and her oral evidence was
recorded.
4. The unchallenged evidence shows that the petitioner
has the requisite means to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per
mensem and that he is earning an income of Rs.15,000/- per
mensem. No contra evidence was adduced. Accordingly, the
learned Magistrate proceeded to pass Annexure-AI order which
was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in revision under
Annexure-AII order.
5. A second revision is not maintainable and that obviously
is the reason why the petitioner has entered this Court through
the door of Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. What is the grievance? The
short contention raised is that the quantum of maintenance
awarded is excessive. It is further contended that the petitioner
was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence. No other
contentions are raised.
6. I find no merit in either contention as to justify the
invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under
Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not applied to get
CRL.M.C.NO. 1458 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
the ex parte order set aside, it is conceded. Why did he not do
so? No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. If the
petitioner has a grievance that he has been wrongly denied the
opportunity to adduce evidence, it is certainly for him to move
the learned Magistrate to get the ex parte order set aside and for
permission to adduce evidence on his side. No such attempt
has been made.
7. The quantum awarded is excessive, it is contended.
The children are aged 5 = years and 4 years respectively. Their
mother has been divorced by the petitioner. The amount
ordered is perfectly justified by the ex parte evidence tendered
by the guardian as P.W.1. The amount ordered does appear to
be absolutely justified going by the unchallenged evidence about
the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimants/minor
children. In any view of the matter, the quantum of maintenance
does not warrant interference by invoking the powers under
Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C.
8. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy// P.S. To Judge