IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 252 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.151/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS : RESPONDENTS ---------------------------- 1. DR.P.P. BHASKARAN, S/O. KELAN, MAMATHA HOSPITAL, NEAR HIGHWAY JUNCTION, P.O. CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR. 2. P.P. ASHOKAN, S/O. KELAN, PUTHIYA VEEDU, KULACHERI PARAMBIL, P.O. KULACHERI, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- P.P. MADHAVI, W/O. KELAN, VASANTHA NIVAS, CHELERY AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 252 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are the sons of the claimant, their mother, and they claim to be aggrieved by an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing them to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively per month to her. 2. The claimant is the mother of the petitioners and her husband, the father of the petitioners herein, is alive. The father had claimed maintenance and as per consent orders, an amount of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively per month are being paid by the petitioners to him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is at this stage that the mother, the claimant, had come before the Family Court claiming maintenance from her children. 3. Status is admitted. Though there is a contention that the mother is not unable to maintain herself, no tangible materials whatsoever have been produced to show that the claimant is not unable to maintain herself. Before the learned Judge of the R.P.F.C.No. 252 of 2008 2 Family Court there was only the evidence of the claimant as PW1 and the petitioners as Rws.1 and 2. Exts.R1 to R6 were marked. 4. Before the Family Court the first petitioner herein had admitted that he shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- p.m. The second petitioner made no such agreement or concession. The learned Judge of the Family Court, after anxiously considering all the materials that were placed before him, had proceeded to pass the impugned order. 5. The petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The first petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid. The counsel contends that though it is true that the first petitioner had offered to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to purchase peace, the learned Judge of the Family Court was not justified in directing payment of an amount of Rs.2,500/- p.m. The dispute in so far as the first petitioner is concerned is only about an amount of Rs.500/-, which is the difference between what he has admitted to pay and what he has been directed to pay. R.P.F.C.No. 252 of 2008 3 6. There is evidence to show that the first petitioner herein leads an affluent life with sufficient income. He is himself the Principal of the Ayurveda Medical College at Parassinikkadavu. His wife is employed as a doctor. His income is borne out by Ext.R2 certificate produced by him. There is a contention that in addition to such income, he has private practice and is earning money from such alternative employment also. Thus so far as the first petitioner is concerned, all that I should decide is whether revisional interference is warranted for the reason that an amount of Rs.500/- p.m. over and above what is admitted has been directed to be paid. 7. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, he is employed abroad. Admittedly he is an Engineer by profession. What is the precise income he derives is not substantiated with specific evidence by the claimant, his mother. It would be idle for the Court to expect that an aged mother in India can successfully attempt to place evidence before the Family Court about the precise income of a son like the second petitioner from his employment abroad. Reasonable inference has to be drawn. I am of the opinion that the direction to pay R.P.F.C.No. 252 of 2008 4 maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. does not suffer from any such vice as to warrant revisional interference. 8. It is contended that as per Ext.R4 order the husband of the claimant herein has been found to be not entitled to claim maintenance from his female children. I am at a loss to understand how that can have any relevance on the claim of the petitioners herein. The claimant/mother was not a party to Ext.R4 proceedings. Her means was not raised, contested or decided in that proceedings. The finding in Ext.R4 is only that the husband of the claimant, i.e. the father of the petitioners herein, is not entitled to claim maintenance from a daughter of his. But it is clear from Exts.R1, R1(a) as also R5 that the petitioners herein had agreed to pay maintenance to their father as per the consent order passed in M.C. 17 of 2005 and M.C. 196 of 2004. In these circumstances the argument laboriously built with the help of Ext.R4 must fall for the ground. 9. The only question that survives for consideration is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The petitioners, the sons of the claimant, are evidently enjoying a sound financial position. R.P.F.C.No. 252 of 2008 5 The husband of the claimant was himself awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as per consent orders passed. There is no merit hence in these circumstances in the contention that the claimant can depend upon her husband for maintenance. 10. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of revision considering the challenge against the discretion exercised by the learned Judge of the Family Court in fixing the quantum of maintenance payable by the petitioners. 11. It is trite that a court of revision exercising correctional and supervisory jurisdiction should not lightly invoke such correctional jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the subordinate courts in the matter of fixing the quantum of maintenance. May be, if this Court were to decide the matter at the first instance, a slightly lesser amount may be fixed. But that is no reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. R.P.F.C.No. 252 of 2008 6 12. The claimant, it is found, was aged about 65 years when the petition was filed in 2006. I am certainly of the opinion that the claimant/respondent herein does not deserve to be dragged to this Court by admission and issue of notice in this revision petition. Unless the exercise of discretion are grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage of justice, the revisional jurisdiction of correction cannot be readily invoked. I need only mention that I am unable to locate any vice vitiating the impugned order, which can justify the invocation of such jurisdiction. 13. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm