IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 208 of 2008()
1. RAJENDRAN, S.O,MADHAVAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.K.GEETHA, W/O.RAJENDRA, AGED 38 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. RANJITH, S/O.RAJENDRAN, AGED 16 YEARS,
3. SREEJITH, S/O.RAJENDRAN, AGED 13 YEARS,
4. ABIJITH,S/O.RAJENDRAN, AGED 10 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.ARUN RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/07/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
R.P.F.C.No.208 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of July 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order passed
under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay maintenance at
the rate of Rs.500/- to his wife, Rs.400/- each to his minor
children aged 16 years, 13 years and 10 years (Rs.1,700/- in all)
respectively per mensum. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is
admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. The petitioner
raised a contention that his wife is guilty of adultery. That plea
is not substantiated. The only other contention raised by the
petitioner is that he is not having sufficient means. He was
found to have properties belonging to him in his possession.
There was nothing to show that he was not an able bodied
person unable to earn his livelihood. It was in these
circumstances that the learned Judge of the Family Court
proceeded to pass the impugned order. It has been made clear
that the minor children are entitled for maintenance only till they
attain majority.
R.P.F.C.No.208/08 2
2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the
impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel
for the petitioner only submits that the quantum of maintenance
awarded is excessive. No other contentions are raised.
3. The amount of maintenance awarded is only Rs.500/-
to the wife and Rs.400/- each to the three children. The
petitioner has landed properties without any doubt. He is bound
to work and earn his livelihood also. He is a person having a
wife and three children. To discharge the liability to maintain
them, he will have to work hard. By no stretch of imagination
can it be held that the quantum of maintenance awarded is
excessive or unreasonable as to justify or warrant invocation of
the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction.
4. I do not find any merit in this petition. This petition
only deserves to be dismissed. This petition is accordingly
dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
R.P.F.C.No.208/08 3
R.P.F.C.No.208/08 4
R.BASANT, J
R.P.F.C.No.
ORDER
11/02/2008