IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 302 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.801/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- MUJEEB, 32 YEARS, S/O.KUNHUDHEEN THOTTIYIL HOUSE, PO.KEEZHAYUR, KEEZHAYUR AMSOM DESOM, NEAR ANTHOOR PALLI BUS STOP, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER: ---------------- 1. KHADEEJA, 28 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED, ARAPPAYIL HOUSE, PO.CHAMRAVATAM, VETTAM PALLIPRAM AMSOM DESOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 302 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. to the claimant/wife. Fundamental facts are not in dispute. Marriage is admitted. The petitioner took up a contention that the claimant had been divorced by him. The wife contested the divorce and did not accept the same. 2. The parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined herself as PW1 and the petitioner examined himself as RW1. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that there has been no valid and proper divorce in accordance with the dictum in Shamin Ara v. State of U.P. (2002 (3) KLT 537). The petitioner alternatively contended that the wife was residing separately without any sufficient reason. R.P.F.C.No. 302 of 2008 2 There was no offer to maintain her on condition that she lives with him. Such an offer could not be made as the very specific contention raised is that she had been divorced. In the course of the proceedings it was further admitted that the petitioner had got remarried also. It is in these circumstances that the learned Judge proceeded to issue the impugned direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge, the learned counsel for the petitioner repeats all the contentions. First of all it is contended that the conclusion that the divorce is not valid is incorrect. In the light of the decision in Shamin Ara (supra) and in the light of the undisputed fact that talak was pronounced without any evidence of any attempt to conciliate and settle the dispute, the said divorce cannot be said to be legally valid. What remains is only the contention that the wife is residing separately without sufficient cause. The petitioner having not made any offer to maintain her on condition that she lives with him and further he having remarried, the said contention must be held to be without any bonafides. She is certainly entitled for separate maintenance. R.P.F.C.No. 302 of 2008 3 5. Lastly it is contended that the petitioner is only a coolie and that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. He has three children in the earlier marriage, the present wife and his parents to be looked after, contends the counsel. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter the amount of Rs.1,500/- is grossly excessive and perverse. 6. 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 discretion 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 or exercise of discretion are grossly erroneous or perverse and that such vice leads to failure/miscarriage of justice. The court of revision cannot and should not invoke its correctional jurisdiction lightly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Judge has discussed the relevant aspects on quantum in paragraphs 15 to 17. I find that the petitioner has a house of his own in R.P.F.C.No. 302 of 2008 4 a five cents plot. The evidence reveals that he is a skilled manual worker. Some indications about his financial influence can be gathered from the fact that with full consciousness of the existing liabilities he has voluntarily taken up the responsibility of a further marriage. Of course, the counsel contends that he needed such domestic assistance to bring up the three children. In any view of the matter, going by the needs of the claimant and the means of the petitioner, I am not persuaded to agree that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 7. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm