IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 33 of 2008()
1. SAJEESH KUMAR P.G., AGED 37,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BINDU.P.S., AGED 34, D/O.SIVAN,
... Respondent
2. GOPIKA, MINOR, D/O.BINDU P.S.
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :08/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
R.P.F.C. No. 33 OF 2008
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against a direction
under section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance at the rate of
Rs.1,250/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively to the claimants,
admittedly, the wife aged 34 years and child aged 8 years of
the petitioner herein.
2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is
admitted. The court below found the wife entitled for separate
maintenance and accordingly issued the impugned direction.
3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the
impugned order. Called upon to explain the nature of
challenge which the petitioner wants to raise against the
impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the quantum of maintenance awarded is
excessive.
4. The amount ordered as stated earlier is only
Rs.1,250/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively to the wife and child
RPFC.33/08
: 2 :
from the date of the petition. The petitioner is admittedly
employed abroad. There is nothing to show that the
claimants have any other means. I am, in these
circumstances, satisfied that the challenge against the
quantum of maintenance awarded is without any merit and
the revision petition only deserves to be dismissed. The
inability of the wife to produce any documents to show the
income of her husband employed abroad cannot persuade
this Court to conclude that there is no sufficient evidence
about the means of the husband. Reasonable inferences and
deductions have to be made. Admittedly, the petitioner is
employed abroad. That premise is, according to me, more
than sufficient to justify the direction to pay the meagre
amounts of Rs.1,250/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively to the wife
and child. This revision does not deserve admission to
consider the contentions raised. I am satisfied that the
revision petition only deserves to be dismissed. I do so.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks