IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 97 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/10/2006 IN OP 344/2005 IN MC.502/2005 of Family Court, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- ATTUPARAMBIL UNNI, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRATTAMANNA, VALAMBOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.VALAMBOOR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE KORUKUTTY BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SRI.M.V.ANANDAN RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- MADANCHERI ROJA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.BHASKARAN, KOTTOPADAM AMSOM, KODUVALIPPURAM DESOM, ALANELLUR. (PERMANENT ADDRESS): ATTUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIRATTAMANNA P.O. VALAMBOOR ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.97 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensum to the claimant, admittedly his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. The claimant/wife is even now prepared to go and reside with the petitioner herein. It is he, who is unwilling to accommodate her. Thus, in effect, the dispute was only regarding the quantum of maintenance payable. That the wife is unable to maintain herself is proved by her evidence and there is no satisfactory evidence contra. The petitioner is employed abroad. As to what is his employment, we do not have satisfactory data. Evidence clearly indicates that he has been employed abroad for some length of time. Ext.B2 produced by the claimant shows that he has been allotted about seven cents of residential property with building in a family partition. The wife, on oath, made claims/assertions about the income, employment and affluence of the petitioner. She had claimed an amount of Rs.2,000/- as monthly maintenance. R.P.F.C.No.97/07 2 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on the basis of the materials placed before him, came to the conclusion that the claim made was absolutely reasonable and accordingly proceeded to pass the impugned order directing payment of maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per mens um to the claimant. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order. What is the grievance? The only grievance raised is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court sitting as a court of revision exercising correctional and supervisory jurisdiction. Unless findings of fact recorded and the discretions exercised are grossly erroneous and perverse and they in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, the revisional jurisdiction cannot and need not be invoked. I am unable to find any such vice vitiating the impugned order. That the petitioner was employed abroad for a reasonably long period of time; that he continues to be employed abroad; was not available in India to tender evidence in this case, that he has properties allotted to him under Ext.B2, do all, in the circumstances of the case, amply justify the impugned direction to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensum as maintenance. R.P.F.C.No.97/07 3 5. The claimant had staked a claim only for Rs.2,000/- per mensum. That amount has been awarded also. This is unfair, it is submitted. I am unable to agree. The mere fact that the claimant has been reasonable in her claim cannot certainly defeat her claim. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find the claim made by her, which amount has been awarded by the court below, is absolutely fair, reasonable and just. No revisional interference is warranted. 6. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, all amounts and deposits before the court below shall be released to the claimants. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.97/07 4 R.P.F.C.No.97/07 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008