IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 282 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.702/2007 OF THE FAMLY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... PETITIONER : ----------------- SAITHALAVIKOYA, S/O.IBRAHIM POTHUMPETTIYIL HOUSE VELLARU, KUMMINIPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM REP. BY THE P/A.HOLDER, IBRAHIM, POTHUMPETTIYIL HOUSE, VELLARU, KUMMINIPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. YAHOORATH, D/O.SALAIMAN @ BAVA KADAKKODAN, CHAMPARAMBU HOUSE CHERUKAVU AMSOM DESOM PULIKKAL PO MALAPPURAM 2. FATHIMA SAHALA, 3 YEARS, (MINOR), S/O.SAITHALAVIKKOYA. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 282 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has preferred this revision petition to assail an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.750/- per mensem respectively to his wife and child. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is also admitted. Separate residence is conceded. There is an unsubstantiated allegation of adultery. Admittedly the petitioner is employed abroad. There is no authentic data about the income that he derives from such employment. He did not examine himself as a witness. His father – the holder of his Power-of- Attorney, was examined as a witness on his side. The wife on oath asserted that the petitioner earns an income of Rs.20,000/- per mensem from his employment abroad. It was, in these R.P.(FC) No. 282 of 2008 -: 2 :- circumstances, that the quantum of maintenance was fixed at the rates referred above. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The short grievance raised is that the quantum of maintenance fixed for the wife is excessive. He is employed on a monthly salary of 600 Dirhams – The Indian equivalent of the same will be Rs.6,000/- per mensem. In these circumstances, the award of Rs.2,000/- per mensem as maintenance for the wife is not justified. 4. Parties belong to the lower strata of society and in any view of the matter the amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem awarded as maintenance is excessive, it is urged. I am afraid, I cannot agree. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise. It is trite that unless the findings of fact and exercise of discretions by the subordinate criminal authorities are grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage of justice, a court of revision should not lightly invoke its revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. On the materials available, I am unable to agree that the impugned order suffers from any such vice as to warrant R.P.(FC) No. 282 of 2008 -: 3 :- invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner is admittedly employed abroad. The wife of a person employed abroad is certainly entitled to live consistent with such status of her husband as an employee working abroad. In this view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the amount of Rs.2,000/- fixed as monthly maintenance can in any way be said to be grossly erroneous or perverse as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. Even assuming that the unsubstantiated assertion made at the Bar that the petitioner gets only an amount of Rs.6,000/- per mensem as salary, I am not persuaded to agree that the same warrants revisional correction. 6. This RP(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 282 of 2008 -: 4 :-