IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 452 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.504/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- EAPPAN MATHEW, S/O.EAPPEN, ULLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, CHELAKKADAVU, MOOTHEDAM P.O., EDAKKARA AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI.O.E.THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- LEELAMMA, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.CHACKO, REPRESENTED BY CHACKO, S/O.MATHAYI, PURATHUR VEEDU, PALANKARA P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 452 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, a divorced husband, assails the order passed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. enhancing the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- p.m. 2. Marriage and divorce are admitted. As early as in 1999 there was a direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. Later the claimant came to court with a prayer for enhancement of maintenance, which was enhanced to Rs.1,000/- p.m. as per order in M.C. 48 of 2004. The claimant again came to Court in 2006 with a prayer that the maintenance amount awarded may be further enhanced. She took up a contention that she was suffering from mental ailment and that huge amount is required to meet her expenses for treatment. She claimed enhancement through her father and guardian, PW1, a person aged about 84 years. 3. The claim for enhancement was resisted. It was contended that adequate arrangement/settlement was made even R.P.F.C.No. 452 of 2007 2 at the time of divorce. The wife was having property measuring about one acre, which she purchased utilising the money given to her as settlement. It was in these circumstances contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay any enhancement of amount. 4. The petitioner is admittedly employed abroad for the past about two decades. It is the case of the claimant that the petitioner is employed in the military there. The petitioner has a case that he was employed as a contract worker. Significantly no material whatsoever was placed before Court to show the employment or income of the petitioner. The wife was divorced years back. Therefore the petitioner will be in a better position to apprise the court of his employment and income. The Power of Attorney holder examined by the petitioner as RW1 had to concede that he does not know whether the petitioner is employed in the military and whether he is getting more than Rs.25,000/- p.m. 5. The court below took note of Exts.P1 to P3 series which reveal the expenses incurred by the claimant for meeting her treatment expenses. For a period of 13 months alone, it exceeded Rs.60,000/-, it R.P.F.C.No. 452 of 2007 3 was noted. It was in these circumstances that the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order granting further enhancement of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. 6. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The short contention raised is that the enhancement awarded is unrealistic and is grossly excessive. Considering the needs of the claimant and the means of the petitioner, such an abrupt enhancement from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/- p.m. within a period of two years from the date of last enhancement is not justified, contends the counsel for the petitioner. 7. I am afraid I am unable to accept the said contention. I must alertly remind myself the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a court of revision exercising supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. Unless the the findings of fact rendered or discretion exercised by Subordinate Courts are so grossly erroneous and unreasonable and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, this Court shall be reluctant to invoke its revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I take note R.P.F.C.No. 452 of 2007 4 of Exts.P1 to P3 series, which give the court an idea about the expenditure in connection with the treatment of the claimant. I take note of the assertion of the claimant about the means and employment of the petitioner and the inability of RW1, his Power of Attorney holder and brother to deny the specific suggestion which were put to him. I also take note of the fact that the petitioner has been employed abroad for a period of two decades. I have taken note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has the liability to maintain his present wife as well as two children in such marriage as also his parents. 8. Viewed from any angle, I am not persuaded to agree that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction deserves to be invoked to interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded to the claimant. The enhancement ordered, according to me, does not suffer from any such error nor can it be said that the direction works out failure or miscarriage of justice. R.P.F.C.No. 452 of 2007 5 9. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, any amount in deposit shall be released to the respondent/claimant by the Family Court. (R. BASANT) Judge tm