IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 285 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.91/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER : RESPONDENT -------------------- M.P.SIDDIQUE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SAINABA, VALLIKUNNU PARAMBIL, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE TALUK, (NALLALAM PSL). BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------- 1. FOUSIYA, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED, THALKKALAKATH, P.O.ARAKKINAR, MARAD, NADUVATTOM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. FATHIMMATHUL SUHARA, AGED 5 YEARS, D/O.M.P.SIDDIQUE, (REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT). - DO - - DO - ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.285 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this revision petition assails an order directing payment of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C to the claimants - his wife aged 27 and his minor daughter aged 2 years. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are admitted. Admittedly subsequent to the commencement of separate residence and prior to the filing of this petition, the petitioner has remarried. Wife refuses to live with him on the ground that he is guilty of matrimonial cruelty. The cause of separate residence need not be probed into further details as admittedly the petitioner has remarried. 2. Admittedly the petitioner is an autorickshaw driver. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively. The admitted circumstance that he is an autorickshaw driver is, according to me, of crucial relevance while considering the challenge against the quantum. We can gather an idea of his own assessment of his financial affluence and ability from the fact that with a 27 years old wife and 2 years old minor child and knowing fully well that he has R.P.F.C. No.285 of 2008 2 the legal obligation to maintain them, he has chosen to embrace the responsibility of a second marriage during the currency of the first marriage. I find absolutely no merit in the contention that the petitioner does not have financial affluence to pay the above said amount to the wife. 3. I must remind myself of the nature and quality of the revisional jurisdiction. Unless the findings of fact entered and the discretion exercised by the subordinate criminal court are grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, no revisional court can need or shall invoke its revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I find no such vice vitiating the impugned order. 4. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner, consequent to non payment of maintenance, has been sentenced u/s 125(3) Cr.P.C. He has remitted an amount of Rs.25,000/- as price to secure his release as per the interim order in this revision petition. The fact that he has been detained for non payment of maintenance does not at all impress me as a sufficient reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-