IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 146 of 2007() ------------------------------- M.C. NO.334/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. ..... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------- SAFARULLA, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI (LATE), RESIDING AT KIZHISSERI HOUSE, PATHAKKARA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. JUMAILA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN, RESIDING AT PALAPPATTA HOUSE, KAPPUNA, EDAKKARA PO., PIN 679 331, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. LINSHAD, 10 YEARS, (MINOR) 3. LIBINAN, 6 YEARS, (MINOR) (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT JUMAILA) ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC). No. 146 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this RP(FC) challenges an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance to his wife and two children at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.800/- respectively per mensem. 2. Marriage and paternity are admitted. Separate residence is also conceded. Court below came to the conclusion on the basis of the oral evidence of the claimant wife as against that of the petitioner herein as RW1 that, claimants are entitled for maintenance at the rates specified above. Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The short contention raised before me is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The learned Judge appears to have considered the question of quantum of maintenance in great deal in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. The averments in the petition as also the averments in the counter affidavit have been read over to me. It is not disputed that the petitioner has business interest in many concerns. He advances that the R.P.(FC). No. 146 OF 2007 -:2:- conduct of them now is not as profitable as it need to be and that some of them happened to be closed on account of loss incurred. The learned Judge of the Family Court had taken note of the fact that he was moving around in luxury cars and further took note of the circumstance that even admittedly for the marriage of the sisters of his wife, he claimed to have been spent an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence is insufficient to correctly locate/identify and ascertain precisely the monthly income of the petitioner. But no court can be oblivious to the difficulties and plight of a separated wife called upon to prove the actual quantity of income earned by her husband. The totality of the circumstances will have to be taken into account. I note that the learned Judge of the Family Court had precisely done that. The course adopted by the learned Judge cannot be said to be objectionable. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature and quality of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of revision to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of correction and superintendence. Unless the discretion exercised in fixing the R.P.(FC). No. 146 OF 2007 -:3:- quantum is found to be grossly erroneous and perverse, this Court shall not invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction to interfere either with the finding regarding liability or regarding the quantum of monthly maintenance fixed for payment to the wife and children. I do not, in these circumstances, find any reason to interfere. This R.P.F.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb R.P.(FC). No. 146 OF 2007 -:4:- R.P.(FC). No. 146 OF 2007 -:5:-