IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 176 of 2008(Y)
1. V.R.RAJAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.S.RAJAMMA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :18/06/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-----------------------------------------------
R.P.(FC) No. 176 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against the order passed by
the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner
to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- each per mensem to
his three minor children.
2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. The
learned Judge of the Family Court taking all the relevant
circumstances into account came to the conclusion that claimant
children are entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- each
per mensem. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass
the impugned order.
3. Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order.
What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner first
of all contends that the petitioner is willing to maintain the children
on condition that they live with him. This is not a defence
permissible under law in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner can certainly approach the Court and seek custody
of the children, if he is entitled for the same. At any rate, he
cannot say that he would pay maintenance to the children only if
RP(FC). No. 176 OF 2008
2
they are returned to his custody. The said contention cannot
succeed. It is next contended that the claim of maintenance
awarded is excessive. The amount awarded is Rs.400/- each per
mensem to the three children. Accept any standards, I am
satisfied that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid
does not warrant revisional interference. The petitioner has not
adduced any evidence and even reckoning him as just an able
bodied person, I am satisfied that the impugned order passed and
quantum fixed do not warrant interference at all.
4. This RP(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb
RP(FC). No. 176 OF 2008
3
RP(FC). No. 176 OF 2008
4