IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 30 of 2009 ----------------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER DTD. 30/09/2008 IN M.C. NO. 173/2004 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM) .............. PETITIONER/ COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ O.J. JUSTINE, S/O. O.D. JOSEPH, AGED 39 YEARS, OTTUPURAKKAL HOUSE, NETTOOR.P.O., MARADU - 682 304. BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. ANITHA, D/O. P.A. JOHN, AGED 29 YEARS, PULICKAL HOUSE, P.C. AUGUSTINE ROAD, PANAYAPPILLY (WEST), MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI - 682 002. 2. ANN VINAYA, AGED ABOUT 5 ½ YEARS, D/O. O.J. JUSTINE, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER ANITHA, D/O. P.A. JOHN, PULICKAL HOUSE, P.C. AUGUSTINE ROAD, PANAYAPPILLY (WEST), MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI- 682 002. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.30 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 ORDER This revision petition is being filed by the petitioner who has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per mensem to his wife and Rs.900/- per mensem to his child. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. There is no worthwhile offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. The wife contended that the petitioner is guilty of matrimonial cruelty. Evidence available was only that of the claimant/wife as against the petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to be a businessman. According to him he only assists his father in the contract work and at the moment that business is not very rosy. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, proceeded to pass the impugned order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 2. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is R.P.F.C. No.30 of 2009 2 excessive. He has already been compelled to pay maintenance of Rs.1 lakh as per an order in an O.P, which was challenged in a Mat.Appeal. In short, the contention is that the amount of maintenance awarded is excessive and that the direction to pay the amount from the date of the petition is causing great financial burden and difficulties to the petitioner. 3. I have heard the contentions. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of revision exercising supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. The discretion exercised by the subordinate criminal courts shall not be lightly interfered with by invoking such jurisdiction. This Court must be satisfied that the discretion exercised is patently wrong, erroneous or perverse and that such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice to justify invocation of such jurisdiction. 4. In the instant case I am not satisfied that the quantum fixed by the court below and the directions to pay maintenance from the date of petition suffer from any such vice as to warrant invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. Even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, the impugned direction appears to be absolutely justified. It is submitted that interim R.P.F.C. No.30 of 2009 3 maintenance was being paid during the pendency of the proceedings. Needless to say, credit shall be given to such interim maintenance already paid and he can seek indulgence of the Execution Court for time to pay the balance maintenance amount while executing the impugned order. 5. I am not impressed by the contention that there would still be a huge amount of arrears in due. The petitioner must pay the amount due by way of arrears. He can show his bona fides by depositing a substantial portion of the amount and seek indulgence of the Family Court to deposit the balance maintenance amount. I have no reason to assume that the learned Judge of the Family Court will not consider such a reasonable request, if any, made by the petitioner. 6. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-