IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 313 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.756/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------- NOUSHAD, S/O MOIDEEN KUTTY, PANOLIPADAM VEEDU, MANNUR RAIL P.O., FAROKE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN SRI.T.A.SHAIN SRI.K.R.SHYNE RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS:- --------------------------------- 1. JAMSHINA, D/O MUHAMMED, AGED 23 YEARS, KUZHIYODIPARAMBIL, KARADU P.O., FAROK COLLEGE VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. FATHIMA FIDA, MINOR, AGED 3 YEARS, (MINOR RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- RP(FC) No. 313 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has come to this Court with this revision petition to assail an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the Family Court obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.600/- per month respectively to the claimants, his wife and child. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is conceded. Separate residence is also admitted. There was an offer by the petitioner to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. Proceedings under Section 498 A IPC are pending. The wife tendered evidence as PW1 and petitioner tendered evidence as RW1. Ext.D1 series of documents were produced by the petitioner to show that he has been undergoing treatment. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an evaluation of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that wife has shown satisfactory reasons to justify her separate residence. Thereupon the Court proceeded to consider the quantum of maintenance that can be directed to be paid. The court took note of the fact that the petitioner is admittedly a painter. His father is a painting R.P.(FC). No. 313 OF 2008 -:2:- contractor, it had come out in evidence. The learned Judge drew the presumption that now a skilled worker/painter must be getting an income of Rs.200/- per day. The learned Judge then came to the conclusion that the petitioner can be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.600/- per month to the wife and child. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the reason? Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is grossly excessive and disproportionate to the income of the petitioner. The petitioner is afflicted with ailments. Ext.D1 series suggest such ailments. In these circumstances the quantum of maintenance awarded may be reduced, it is prayed. No other contentions are raised. 4. 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 jurisdiction of correction and superintendence. Unless the discretion exercised in fixing the quantum is found to be grossly erroneous and perverse, this Court shall not invoke the R.P.(FC). No. 313 OF 2008 -:3:- 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 child. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there may at least be a direction to the court below to grant the petitioner further time to make arrears of payment which expose him him to the threat of a default sentence. It is for the petitioner to show his bonafides before the learned Magistrate by making substantial payments and then seek time. The learned Judge, needless to say, must consider such request and pass appropriate orders. 6. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that quantum fixed by the learned Judge suffers from any vice which can or should persuade this Court to invoke the revisonal jurisdiction. It is true that the documents have been produced ranging from 2004 to 2008 to suggest that R.P.(FC). No. 313 OF 2008 -:4:- the petitioner has been undergoing treatment. But as rightly noted by the court below, there is nothing to show that such medical consultations/treatments do in any way affect the capacity of the petitioner to work as a painter and earn his livelihood. I am in these circumstances satisfied that, going by the needs of the claimants or the means of the petitioner, the impugned order does not warrant revisional interference. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb R.P.(FC). No. 313 OF 2008 -:5:- R.P.(FC). No. 313 OF 2008 -:6:-