IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 58 of 2008() --------------------- MC.170/2006 of Family Court, Palakkad. .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- K.SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.KITTUNNI, AGED 56 YEARS, PANAMKUTTI HOUSE, PERUVEMBA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------- 1. PRADEEP, S/O.VASANTHA, AMMINIPARAMBU VEEDU, KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. PRASEETHA, D/O.VASANTHA, AMMINIPARAMBU VEEDU, KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.58 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against the dismissal of an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner claiming alteration of the maintenance allowance granted to his two children. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the Family Court had directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- and Rs.650/- per mensum respectively to the two respondents herein. Claimants are major son and daughter respectively of the petitioner. Such maintenance was awarded by the learned Judge taking note of the fact that the claimants though they had attained majority are physically infirm and are not able to maintain themselves. That order was challenged in revision; but the challenge in revision was dismissed. It is thus that the claimants/respondents are now entitled to claim an amount of Rs.600/- and Rs.650/- respectively. 2. The petitioner who was employed as a mechanic in the K.S.R.T.C, thereafter retired from service. He lost his monthly remuneration as salary; but became entitled for payment of pension. In these circumstances, he came to this court with a request that the maintenance amount awarded may be reduced. R.P.F.C.No.58/08 2 3. The application was opposed. It was contended that the petitioner gets handsome amount by way of pension. He was a mechanic in the K.S.R.T.C. He is a skilled employee. He is, even after his retirement, employed as a mechanic and is earning remuneration. In these circumstances there is absolutely no necessity or justification to reduce the maintenance amount awarded to the children, it was contended. 4. The parties went to trial on these contentions. The petitioner examined himself as PW1. The mother of the claimants examined herself as CPW1. Exts.P1 to P3 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court relied on Ext.P3 which shows that the petitioner gets a monthly income of Rs.3,567/-. The learned Judge further realistically took note of the fact that notwithstanding the controversy about the post retirement employment and income derived by the petitioner, it is reasonable to assume that he must be getting some further income from such employment. In these circumstances, the learned Judge of the Family Court sailed to the conclusion that there is absolutely no warrant to reduce the meager amount of Rs.600/- and Rs.650/- awarded as monthly maintenance to the two children. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. R.P.F.C.No.58/08 3 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The short contention raised is that in view of subsequent retirement of the petitioner from regular service, the quantum of maintenance awarded must have been reduced. 7. I must alertly take note of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court sitting as a court of revision exercising correctional and supervisory jurisdiction. Unless the impugned order is grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, such jurisdiction cannot be lightly invoked. In the facts and circumstances of this case, on undisputed and admitted facts, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no need to invoke the correctional jurisdiction as a court of revision. The order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court does appear to me to be absolutely cogent, reasonable, fair and just. In any view of the matter, the meager amounts awarded does not warrant interference. 8. I concur with the conclusions of the Family Court and dismiss this revision petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.58/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.58/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008