IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 276 of 2007() ---------------------- M.C.332/2006 OF Family Court, PALAKKAD : REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- SURENDRAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, CHURAKKOTTIL VILAYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMARI, W/O. SURENDRAN, CHURAKKOTTIL HOUSE, VILAYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. KRISHNADAS, S/O. VIJAYAKUMARI, -DO- -DO-. 3. VIPINDAS, AGED 14 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAKUMARI, -DO- -DO-. 4. VIDHYA, AGED 12 YEARS, -DO- -DO-. (RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT). BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R1 TO R4. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.276 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this R.P.F.C assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.750/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.500/- to his wife aged 38 years and his minor children aged 17 years, 12 years and 10 years respectively. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. While the wife contended that she who is afflicted with cancer and her children including the second petitioner who is afflicted with mental retardation are residing separately as she was unable to cope with the matrimonial cruelty inflicted on her by the petitioner, the petitioner contended that the claimant/wife is residing separately without any sufficient cause. Claimants asserted that the petitioner gets a handsome income of about Rs.10,000/- per mensum from his employment as toddy tapper and employee of the toddy shop. The petitioner contended that he does not get such income. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined herself as PW1. PWs 2 and 3 were also examined by R.P.F.C.No.276/07 2 her. They are the official of the Welfare Fund and employer of the petitioner herein. She proved Exts.P1 to P6. Exts.P1 and P2 are to show that the second petitioner has mental disability. Exts.P3 to P5 are to show that PW1 is afflicted with cancer. Exts.P6 and C1 relate to the employment of the petitioner herein. The petitioner examined himself as CPW1. He proved Ext.D1 in support of his contention that he has suffered an accident and had suffered injuries. 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious evaluation of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the claimants have succeeded in proving that they are entitled for maintenance. So far as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned there is no dispute about the liability to pay maintenance till they attain majority. So far as the first petitioner is concerned the only relevant dispute is the dispute as to whether there is sufficient cause for the first petitioner/wife to take up separate residence. It is seen that the petitioner is reasonably well employed. It is not shown that the claimants have any source of income. It is also shown that the first petitioner is afflicted with cancer and the second petitioner is afflicted with mental R.P.F.C.No.276/07 3 retardation. In these circumstances, probabilities reveal that unless there are satisfactory reasons, it is unlikely that wife and children would reside away from their husband/father. Totality of circumstances clearly reveal that the court below has committed no error in choosing to accept and act upon the version of PW1 on oath in preference to that of the petitioner on oath as CPW1. The finding that the first claimant/wife had taken up separate residence with sufficient reason does not also warrant revisional interference. 3. Coming to the quantum of maintenance awarded, the amount ordered indicated above is only Rs.1,000/-, Rs.750/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.500/- respectively per mensum to the wife and minor children. Going by the needs of the claimants the said amount cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be excessive. The indications available from the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 as also Ext.C1 suggest that the petitioner gets income far exceeding Rs.6,000/-. The total amount directed to be paid to the four claimants is only Rs.3,000/-. In this view of the matter it can never be held that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality R.P.F.C.No.276/07 4 and contours of the jurisdiction of this court in revision. Sitting as a court of revision unless findings of fact entered and the discretions exercised by subordinate courts are found to be grossly erroneous and perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction cannot be lightly invoked. I am satisfied that the impugned order suffers from no such vice as to warrant invocation of the correctional jurisdiction in revision. 4. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.276/07 5 R.P.F.C.No.276/07 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008