IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 28 of 2008() --------------------- MC.350/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN.PETITIONER/ APPELLANT -------------------------- PRADEEPKUMAR,AGED 99 YEARS S/O.SADANANDANPILLA, ANANDAMANDIRAM, MANMALAMUK DESOM,PO, ALTHOOR ALATHOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. AMBILY,AGED 29 YEARS, W/O. PRADEEPKUMAR, D/O. KUTTIYIL OMANA AMMA, PEECHI VILLAGE,VAZHAKKUMPARA, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. MINOR NEHA, AGED 8 YEARS D/O. PRADEEPKUMAR & AMBILY REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER AMBILY, THE IST RESPONDENT. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.F.C. No. 28 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a direction issued to the petitioner by the Family Court under section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to his wife and Rs.400/- per month to his minor child aged 8 years. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. The liability to pay maintenance is also not disputed. The petitioner offered to pay an amount of Rs.600/- per month as total maintenance to his wife and child. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court felt that it was not necessary to go into the trial in the light of the offer made and came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.600/- per month to the wife and Rs.400/- per month to the child shall meet the ends of justice eminently. Accordingly, without R.P.F.C.No.28/08 : 2 : waiting for any detailed enquiry/trial, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the said order. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order. What is the grievance? The only grievance is that the quantum of maintenance is excessive. I would certainly have been happier if the learned Family Court had allowed the parties to adduce evidence. But the mere fact that the learned Judge did not wait for evidence of the parties cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, persuade this Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The order shows that the petitioner is running a medical shop. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material to support that conclusion. I shall assume that he is not running a medical shop. Even a person - a husband and father, who is not alleged to be unhealthy or sick has the duty to work for his livelihood and support his wife and child. The quantum of maintenance awarded cannot be said to be excessive in the circumstances. R.P.F.C.No.28/08 : 3 : 5. Any and every error committed by a subordinate court shall not ipso facto persuade this Court to lightly invoke its revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Such error/impropriety must be gross and should in turn result in miscarriage of justice. It is only then that this Court can be persuaded to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Suffice it to say that having considered the entire materials I am satisfied that the impugned order does not in any view warrant interference. 6. This R.P.F.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks