IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 RPFC.No. 94 of 2007() --------------------- OP.218/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN O.P. ------------------------------------------------ MACHINGAL AYOOB, AGED 35, S/O.KUNHAVARAN KUTTY, INAYYAPPAD VEEDU, P.O.PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN O.P. --------------------------------- 1. MUMTHAS, AGED 22, D/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, PUTHAN PEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, KUNDOOR AMSOM CHERUMUKKU, P.O.KUNDOOR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. MOHAMED ALTHAF, AGED 3 1/2, (MINOR 2ND RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR FOR R1,2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 94 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- p.m. respectively to his wife and minor child aged 2½ years. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. Admittedly after the separate residence commenced, the petitioner has married again. There is nothing to show that the wife and the child are not unable to maintain themselves. The petitioner is, on his own showing, a businessman running at least two items of business. The court below, in these circumstances, drawing reasonable inferences from the proved circumstances, notwithstanding the absence of specific data to prove the precise income of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the wife and the child are entitled for Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- p.m. respectively from the date of the petition. R.P.F.C.No. 94 of 2007 2 3. The petitioner in this revision petition claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? The only contention raised before me is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 4. I must alertly remind myself the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a court of revision exercising supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. It is by now trite that the discretions exercised by the courts below and the findings of fact rendered shall not be lightly interfered with invoking such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. To justify invocation of such correctional jurisdiction, this Court must be satisfied that the findings of fact are grossly erroneous or perverse and that such vice leads to failure/miscarriage of justice. In the facts and circumstances of this case I am unable to find any such circumstance justifying invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. I am not at all persuaded to agree that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the court below is not fair, reasonable and just. It does not at any rate warrant interference at the instance of the petitioner. R.P.F.C.No. 94 of 2007 3 5. It follows that this revision petition only deserves to be dismissed. I do so. (R. BASANT) Judge tm