IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 293 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.96/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REV. PETITIONER: ----------------- PADMANABHAN, AGED 34, S/O.CHAANDANASSERI, KADAMBUR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ATHEENA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.MUKUNDAN MENON, ATHEENIYAM VEEDU ONGALLUR DESOM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P. (FC) No. 293 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has come to this Court to challenge the order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also conceded. According to the petitioner, the wife suffers from mental ailment and he has approached the Family Court to declare the marriage to be null and void. That application which was pending has now been disposed of. The prayer to declare the marriage to be null and void has been rejected. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the rejection of the claim for declaration of nullity of marriage and the same is pending before this Court as Mat. Appeal No.629/08. The learned Judge of the Family Court taking note of the fact that R.P. (FC) No. 293 of 2008 -: 2 :- the marriage and separate residence are admitted took the view that an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensem deserves to be paid as maintenance to the claimant/wife from the date of the petition. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Mat. Appeal is pending and till then it would be unjust to direct the petitioner to pay any amount as maintenance. Alternatively and secondly, it is contended that the quantum of maintenance fixed is excessive. I am unable to accept either of the contentions. The marriage having been admitted, the petitioner is definitely bound to pay maintenance to his wife. If the marriage is declared to be null and void, the order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. can be got vacated under Sec.127 on the strength of such order. At the moment, the prayer has been turned down and the appeal is pending. I am satisfied that it is not necessary to admit this revision petition and post the matter before this Court awaiting the disposal of the Mat. Appeal. 4. Coming to the quantum of maintenance fixed, I reckon the same as absolutely reasonable going by the materials R.P. (FC) No. 293 of 2008 -: 3 :- available about the needs of the claimant/wife and the means of the petitioner. Even reckoning him as an able bodied person, direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem cannot be faulted. It is admitted that he is a Security staff of Big Bazaar, Palakkad. Better material about the income earned by him is not made available to the court at all. In any view of the matter, the amount fixed does appear to be absolutely reasonable. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Unless findings of fact and discretions exercised by the subordinate courts are so grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage or failure of justice, such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction cannot and should not be lightly invoked. I need only mention that I find no vice vitiating the impugned order which can persuade me to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. 4. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P. (FC) No. 293 of 2008 -: 4 :-