IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 RPFC.No. 2 of 2009() -------------------- MC.4/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/CR.PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- RAGHU, S/O.KESAVAN, AGED 36, PAMBOORICKAL HOUSE, KULAMAVU KARA, RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.29A, KSEB COLONY, MOOLAMATTAM. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN K.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JOBE @ JOYAL, AGED 2 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN AND GRANDMOTHER CHINNA, ETTANIYIL HOUSE, ARAKKULAM VILLAGE, KAVUMPADY BHAGOM, THODUPUZHA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 2 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R In this R.P.F.C. the petitioner assails a direction issued to him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- p.m. to the claimant, his illegitimate child and a further amount of Rs.3,000/- as cost. The impugned order clearly reveals that paternity, though it was disputed at the earlier stages of the trial, was accepted and conceded after the report of the DNA test was obtained. The impugned order further shows that the parties had settled their disputes and they had filed a joint application agreeing to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- p.m. from the date of that petition and to pay a further amount of Rs.3,000/- as cost. 2. What then is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the passing of the order certain events had taken place making it impossible for the petitioner to pay the amount agreed upon. R.P.F.C.No. 2 of 2009 2 3. The alleged circumstance even if true cannot justify the challenge against the consent order mounted now in the revision petition. If the petitioner has a grievance that any subsequent circumstance has intervened making it impossible for him to pay the maintenance ordered to be paid under the impugned order, it is certainly for him to approach the learned Judge of the Family Court with an appropriate request under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The alleged circumstance even if true, cannot persuade me to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction against the impugned consent order. 4. This revision petition is in these circumstances dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm