IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 230 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.186/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- OUSEPH, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, MAZHUVANCHERRY HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA, PARAVOOR. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- THANKAMMA, AGED 68, W/O.OUSEPH, MAZHUVANCHERRY HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA, PARAVOOR. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 230 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this RP(FC) assails an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem to his wife – the claimant. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. There is no contention that the wife is not unable to maintain herself. There is no specific offer that the petitioner is willing to maintain the claimant/wife on condition that she lives with him. 3. What then is the dispute? A contention was raised that the petitioner is unable to maintain himself and that he is being maintained by one of his sons. The claimant is residing with another son. 4. Thus the crucial question was whether the petitioner, R.P.(FC) No. 230 of 2008 -: 2 :- who is said to be a person above the age of 70 years, has sufficient means to maintain his wife. On that aspect, we have conflicting interested testimony. But the evidence of P.W.2, which appears to me to be crucial in the circumstances, remained unchallenged. He is the Branch Secretary of the Vyapara Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi, Puthenvelikkara. According to him, the petitioner was running a cattle feed business. Significantly, that witness was not cross-examined. His evidence remains unchallenged, knocking the bottom out of the contention that the petitioner does not have sufficient means. 5. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise. The revisional jurisdiction is one of superintendence and correction. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Unless the findings of fact are grossly erroneous or perverse and such findings lead to failure/miscarriage of justice, the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction cannot and need not be ordinarily invoked. I do not find any reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction against the finding of fact that the petitioner is having sufficient means. In the light of the unchallenged evidence of P.W.2, that finding appears to me to be cogent, reasonable and not, at any rate, grossly erroneous R.P.(FC) No. 230 of 2008 -: 3 :- or perverse. 6. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, I am not persuaded to agree that the amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem fixed is, in these circumstances, excessive as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction against such fixation of quantum. 7. This RP(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge