IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP(Family Court) No. 49 of 2008() 1. SURESH KUMAR,AGED 33 YEARS ... Petitioner Vs 1. ADVAITH, AGED 2 1/2 YEARS, (MINOR) ... Respondent 2. RAJITHA,D/O. NEDUMBARAYIL N.K.RAMADAS, For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :19/02/2008 O R D E R R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.49 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February 2008 O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against a direction issued
to the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per
mensum to the claimant, his child, from the date of the petition
under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. The
father and the mother are residing separately consequent to
some strain in the matrimony. Both the father and the mother
are employed as teachers. Both of them get a monthly income of
about Rs.12,000/- each. The claimant/child represented by its
mother claimed an amount of Rs.3,500/- per mensum as
maintenance. The petitioner took up a contention that the
mother is residing separately without any legal justification. He
further contended that the quantum of maintenance claimed was
2. The mother of the claimant examined herself as PW1.
No other evidence whatsoever was adduced. The learned Judge
of the Family Court, by the impugned order, directed payment of
an amount of Rs.2,000/- only per mensum to the child.
3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the
impugned order. What is his grievance? Before me, it is argued
that the quantum of maintenance fixed is excessive. Though
other contentions were raised before the Family Court, no other
contentions are raised now.
4. Admittedly, the father has an income of about
Rs.12,000/- per mensum. He has no obligation to maintain his
wife as the wife – the mother of the petitioner herein, is able to
maintain herself by the salary which she receives. The petitioner
claimed that he has the liability to maintain his aged parents
5. In any view of the matter, the direction issued by the
learned Judge of the Family Court to the petitioner, a person
getting a monthly income of Rs.12,000/- (and who is not liable to
maintain his wife now) to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mens
um to his only child cannot be held to be incorrect, improper or
perverse as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction
of superintendence and correction to interfere with the same.
The quantum fixed, does appear to me to be absolutely
reasonable. At any rate, it does not warrant interference at the
instance of the petitioner herein. The claimant has not
challenged the said order and it is not necessary to make any
mention about such challenge, if any raised.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has already moved the Family Court for the
custody of the child. The learned counsel for the petitioner
prays that any order passed in the present proceedings may not
fetter his claim for custody of the child. Needless to say, the
claim for custody of the child will have to be decided on its merit
and on the evidence to be adduced by the parties in such
7. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.49/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.49/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008