IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 414 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.154/2004 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- KARTHIKEYAN NAIR K., S/O KRISHNA PILLAI, RETIRED K.S.R.T.C DRIVER, PAPPANAMCODE DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT POTTAVILA PUTHEN VEETTIL, GUEST NAGAR, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- 1. LALITHA, RAJ VIHAR, KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJESH, -DO- -DO- 3. RAJITHA, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN FOR R1TO R3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C No.414 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this Revision Petition challenges an order passed against him obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.500/- per mensem each to the 1st and 3rd claimants, admittedly his wife and his minor child. The 2nd claimant was found to have attained majority during the pendency of the M.C and the maintenance ordered to him was limited till the date of attaining his majority. 2. The petitioner has no grievance against the judgment of maintenance to the 2nd claimant his son who has attained majority and the 3rd claimant, his minor daughter. He challenges the order only in so far as it relates to the 1st claimant, his wife. 3. Marriage is admitted. That the spouses are residing separately is also admitted. While the wife would contend that the husband has left her and is neglecting and refusing to maintain her, the petitioner/husband raised the contention that it is the wife who has unjustifiably excluded him from the place of her residence. Let that controversy be as it is. There is nothing to show that the wife had refused to permit the petitioner to share the roof. That fact is not seriously disputed. R.P.F.C No.414 of 2007 2 4. There is a contention that the wife has her own source of income. It is alleged that she knows tailoring. It is not disputed by her that she knows tailoring and earn any income. But according to her, she is unable to do the work of tailoring because of her failing eye sight. There is absolutely no tangible evidence to show that there has been serious avocation of tailoring by the 1st claimant. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the direction to pay maintenance to such a claimant/wife is absolutely justified. 5. It is next contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The petitioner is a retired driver from the K.S.R.T.C. He gets a monthly income of Rs.1,747/- per mensem by way of pension. He was allegedly getting, till his retirement, a regular income by way of salary. He is a qualified driver and has the responsibilities to maintain his wife and a minor child. It would certainly idle to expect him who is qualified in driving his family, to sit idle at home and do any work. Even without taking note of whatever additional or incidental income that he must be making after his retirement by engaging himself in profitable activity, I am satisfied that reckoning the pension received by him alone, the amount of Rs.500/- each for the wife and child cannot R.P.F.C No.414 of 2007 3 by any stretch of imagination be held to be excessive, unjust or inequitable. 6. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and exercise. The revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction cannot be lightly invoked by a court. Unless the findings of fact and the discretions exercised by the subordinate courts are so grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice such jurisdiction cannot and should not be invoked. I find the conclusion of the learned Judge of the Family Court and discretion exercised by the learned Judge to be absolutely cogent, reasonable, fair and just. They do not, at any rate, warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 5. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-