IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 189 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.283/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER : COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------ BALACANDRAN @ BABU, S/O SANTHA P. MENON, "PRASANTH", PUZHAYORM,VANDITHAVALAM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: ------------- SANGEETHA, D/O ANANDAM TEACHER, "KALLAMPADAM HOUSE", MELARCODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.189 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 ORDER In this revision petition, the petitioner assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the Family Court obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per mensem to his wife. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. There was a contention that the wife was residing separately without sufficient cause. The rival contestants examined themselves as PW1 and RW1. A witness was examined on the side of the petitioner as RW2. Criminal prosecution under Section 498 A I.P.C is admittedly pending against the petitioner herein. The claimant contended that the petitioner was employed in Gujarat and used to get an amount of Rs.20,000/- p.m as income. The petitioner contended that he was only a peon in a company in Gujarat and it is incorrect to say that he used to get an income of Rs.20,000/- per mensem. At any rate, he has already lost his employment in Gujarat and is now employed at his native place. According to him, he gets an amount of Rs.3,500/- p.m from such employment. R.P.F.C. No.189 of 2008 2 2. It is, in these circumstances, that the learned Judge of the Family Court directed payment of maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per mensem by the impugned order. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The short grievance aired by the petitioner is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. No other contentions are raised. 4. It is common case that the petitioner does not have his employment in Gujarat now. Admittedly he is employed at his native place. There is dispute about the income/earnings from such employment. The petitioner is the employee and he will be in the most advantageous position to prove his precise income. The difficulties of a wife living in separation to prove the precise income of her husband who has taken up an employment after such separation must be realistically understood and appreciated by the court. Admitted income itself is Rs.3,500/-. Petitioner has not chosen to adduce any evidence. 5. I must also alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of revision exercising the supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. R.P.F.C. No.189 of 2008 3 Unless the discretions exercised by the subordinate courts are grossly erroneous and perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction shall not be ordinarily invoked. 6. Having rendered my anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, I am not satisfied that any such vice exists which can or should persuade this Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded. 7. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-