IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 341 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.385/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------ HAMZA HAJI, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.VADAKKAN SYED, KARKKIDAMKUNNU AMSOM DESOM MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------- 1. AFSATH, 30 YEARS D/O.MUHAMMED @ BAPPU KEEDATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARKKIDAMKUNNU AMSOM DESOM MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. MUHAMMED NOUFIC (MINOR) S/O.VADAKKAN HAMZA HAJI REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.341 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. 2. Marriage between the mother of the claimant/child and the petitioner herein is admitted. Birth of the claimant/child during the currency of such matrimony is also admitted. A contention was raised disputing paternity of the child. Absolutely no satisfactory data was even attempted to be adduced in support of the plea of denial of paternity. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the claimant/child is entitled for maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the totality of circumstances. The learned Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner was employed abroad for some period of time and that he has landed property where agriculture is conducted. 175 rubber trees were admittedly available in 1.7 acres of land planted with rubber. He has a total extent of about 2.5 acres of R.P.F.C.No.341/08 2 land also, it was conceded. It was in these circumstances that the court came to the conclusion that the petitioner can safely be mulcted with the liability to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensum to the claimant/child. 3. No attempt is made before me to assail the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the claimant who has been found to be his child. Less said about the plea of dispute of paternity the better. The plea raised shows the cruel face of the attitude of a father to the child. The learned Judge of the Family Court definitely appears to have thought that the injustice in the nature of the defence raised must be adequately redressed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise. The revisional jurisdiction is one of superintendence and correction. Even the quest for a better conclusion on facts cannot persuade this court to lightly invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Unless the findings of fact and the exercise of discretion is vitiated by the R.P.F.C.No.341/08 3 vice of the gross error and perversity which in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, such revisional jurisdiction cannot and shall not be invoked. I am hence convinced that this is not a fit case to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. In coming to that conclusion, I take note of the irresponsible defence raised by the petitioner denying paternity of the child and the injustice caused to the child. I further take note of the materials available about the needs of the child and the means of the petitioner. 5. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.341/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.341/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008