IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 297 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.164/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- E.V. PRAKASHAN AGED 36 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN, EZHUTHIPPALLY HOUSE, CHULLIKARA, P.O. PADIMARUTHU, HOSDURG, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SMT. PRIYA AGED 30 YEARS, D/O RAGHAVAN, AYALATHUKUNNIL, CHETTUKALLU, CHULLIKARA, P.O. PADIMARUTHU, HOSDURG, KASARGOD. 2. SHYAM AGED 11 YEARS, 3. SIVA AGED 31/2 BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 297 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has filed this revision petition to assail a direction issued to him by the Family Court under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively to his wife aged 29 years and his minor children aged 10 years and 2 ½ years. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. It is a case of the claimant/wife that she is entitled to separate residence as the petitioner is having illicit intimacy with her own sister. The claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and the petitioner examined himself as R.W.1. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for maintenance at the rates specified above. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the R.P.(FC) No. 297 of 2008 -: 2 :- impugned order. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. At least, the quantum awarded to the wife may be reduced, it is urged. The wife knows tailoring. She earns income from such activity. The petitioner is only a coolie. At any rate, the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive, it is urged. 4. There is nothing to show that the wife earns any income from any employment. The mere fact that she knows tailoring as admitted by her no reason to assume that she has income therefrom. The wife asserts that the petitioner as a timber worker gets an income of Rs.500/- per day. According to him, he is a coolie and gets an income of Rs.100/- per day. According to him, his wife as a tailor is able to earn Rs.250/- per day. 5. Though detailed reasoning is not given, the learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the maintenance can be fixed at the rates specified above. I shall assume the petitioner to be only an able bodied person as described by the learned Judge. Taking only that input into account, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance R.P.(FC) No. 297 of 2008 -: 3 :- awarded does not warrant revisional interference. 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. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 297 of 2008 -: 4 :-