IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 163 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.291/2003 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM DTATED 301.01.2007. .................... REVISION PETITION/RESPONDENT/HUSBAND: --------------------------------------------------- RAGHUVARAN, AGED ABOUT 60, S/O. NARAYANAN, MUN NIRAYIL HOUSE, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.E.M.MURUGAN SRI.R.ARUN (PALLURUTHY) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/WIFE: --------------------------------------- 1. SATHYABHAMA K.A., W/O. RAGHUVARAN, H.NO.XXXI/5120, SUNIL NIVAS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU. ADV.SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 163 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 O R D E R The impugned order was passed at the end of a long battle. The claimant wife has claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The claim was filed as early as in 2003. The petitioner was employed, at that point of time, at the Cochin Post Trust. He was admittedly getting an income of Rs.11,378.50 per mensem. He retired from service on 31.01.05. Terminal benefits were obviously received by him. The learned Judge of the Family Court on the basis of the specific materials available, came to the conclusion that post retirement he was getting an amount of Rs.4,930/- p.m. as income by way of pension, interest and rent. The learned Judge in these circumstances fixed the amount of maintenance payable at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem from the date of petition to the date of retirement and at the rate of Rs.2,000/- from the date of retirement. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the R.P.(FC) No.163 OF 2008 2 grievance? The only grievance urged before this Court is that the quantum of the maintenance awarded is at any rate excessive. But, I am unable to agree. The direction to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the wife when the husband earns an income of Rs.11,378.50, can by no stretch of imagination be held to be excessive or perverse. Similarly the direction to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem after his retirement when he admittedly gets an income of Rs.4,930/- p.m. cannot also be said to be excessive. When he was getting about Rs.11,000/-, the direction was only to pay Rs.3,000/-. Post retirement also the proportions must be maintained and the amount must get reduced, it is urged. 3. I find absolutely no merit in this contention also. The wife has to live in tune with the lifestyle she leads. Evidently the husband enjoys a very sound financial position as can be seen from the income by way of interest as also the income from the property. He thus have assets. As against Rs.4,930/- which the husband was earning after his retirement, the wife has been directed to be paid only an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction which I am called upon to R.P.(FC) No.163 OF 2008 3 exercise. It is the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction which is sought to be invoked. The discretion exercised by a subordinate court shall not be lightly interfered with by this Court invoking such jurisdiction. In order to invoke such jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied that the exercise of discretion were perverse or grossly unreasonable and such exercise results in miscarriage of justice. I am not persuaded to agree that the quantum fixed by the learned Judge of Family Court suffers from any such vice which can justify or warrant invocation of revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. This RP(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been some intervening change in the circumstances after the order is passed. That contention cannot be taken note of, while considering the challenge against the impugned order. If the petitioner feels that there are any changes of circumstances, it is upto him to move the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb R.P.(FC) No.163 OF 2008 4 R.P.(FC) No.163 OF 2008 5 R.P.(FC) No.163 OF 2008 6