IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 59 of 2008() --------------------- MC.208/2005 of Family Court, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------- JAISON, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUVYPE, AYYAMPILLY P.O. KOCHI TALUK, PIN: 682 501. BY ADV. SMT.J.SHEEBA MARIAM RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. SHIJI, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.JAISON CHEMMAYATH HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM. 2. LANSON, REP.BY 1ST RESPONDENT AGED 9 YEARS, S/O.JAISON CHEMMAYATH HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.(C).No.59 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively to the claimants - the wife aged 29 and minor child, aged 7 years of the petitioner-who is aged 35 years. Marriage is admitted. Paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The wife asserted that she had sufficient reasons to reside separately. The petitioner asserted that the wife did not have sufficient reason to reside separately. The wife narrated her tale of woes as to why she was compelled to remain separately from her husband with her minor child. 2. The court below was called upon to choose between the oral evidence of PW1-the claimant on the one side, and RW- the petitioner on the other. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the version of PW1 has to be preferred. The claimant asserted cruelty as the reason justifying separate maintenance whereas according to the petitioner, there was no reason whatsoever for the claimant/wife to reside R.P.F.(C).No.59 of 2008 2 separately. The conclusion of the court below is found to be certainly a possible conclusion on the basis of the material presently available. In any view of the matter, I am not satisfied that the said finding warrants interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 3. The next contention is only about the quantum of maintenance payable. The court below has awarded Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively to the claimants. Admittedly the petitioner was employed abroad. He asserts that he is not now abroad. Even accepting that the petitioner admittedly is a young able bodied person aged about 35 years. He was earlier employed abroad admittedly. Even reckoning the petitioner as an unskilled manual worker, the amount directed to be paid is absolutely justified. No interference is hence warranted. 4. It will not be in apposite in this context for this Court to be reminded of the nature, quality and scope of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. It is trite that any and every error committed by the subordinate criminal court, even assuming that any such error has been committed, cannot be interfered with by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. Error must be gross. The improprity, incongruity or perversity of such R.P.F.(C).No.59 of 2008 3 gross proposition must be shown to exist. Such vice must in turn lead to failure or miscarriage of justice. Then and only then can this court be persuaded to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. I find no reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction against the discretion exercised by the learned Judge of the Family Court on the question that the evidence of PW1 can be preferred to that of RW1 or regarding the discretion to fix the quantum of compensation payable at Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively. At the instance of the petitioner, the quantum fixed does not certainly warrant interference. The claimants have not so far chosen to challenge the said order. 5. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-