IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 196 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.310/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- P.ASSAINAR, AGED 43, S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED, MUPPATTAMMAL HOUSE, ARSHA - AJIRSHA MANZIL, KANNADICHALIL COLONY, P.O.KAKKODY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. N.P.SAINABA, AGED 39, D/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHANGARATHAZATHU HOUSE, P.O.PADINJATTUMURI, KAKKODY, KOZHIKODE. 2. AFINASH, AGED 10, (MINOR), S/O.SAINABA. 3. AYISHA NOORA, AGED 8, (MINOR) D/O.SAINABA, RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE IST PETITIONER. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.196 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by the Family Court obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and 2 minor children @ Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively. 2. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is also accepted. There is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. Though a plea of divorce was set up, it fell to the ground in the total absence of any material to support the same. The liability to pay maintenance is not disputed and the short area of challenge is the quantum of maintenance awarded. 3. Admittedly the petitioner was earlier employed in the Gulf, he has now returned to India. According to the claimants, he is running a hotel business. According to him, he is employed as a cleaner in a hotel and gets a paltry amount of Rs.75/- to Rs.80/- per day. The learned Judge of the Family Court was called upon to choose between the interested version of the claimant as PW1 R.P.F.C. No.196 of 2008 2 and the petitioner as RW1. The learned Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner was not even able to give details of the hotel where he claims to have been working as a cleaner. On the contrary, there was an assertion of the 1st claimant/PW1 that the petitioner, a Gulf returnee, is running a hotel business. It is in the nature of this evidence that the learned Judge chose to accept and act upon the oral evidence of PW1 that the petitioner was getting an income in the range of Rs.10,000/- per mensem and proceeded to award the total amount of Rs.3,500/- per mensem to the 3 claimants as shown above. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and exercise. The revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction cannot be lightly invoked by a court. Unless the findings on fact and the discretions exercised by the subordinate courts are so grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice such jurisdiction cannot and should not be invoked. I find no such vice in the impugned order justifying the invocation of such revisional jurisdiction. 5. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- R.P.F.C. No.196 of 2008 3 R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.Appl.No.6233 of 2008 in UNNUMBERED R.P.F.C ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 ORDER This petition is to condone the delay of 602 days in filing a revision petition which in turn is directed against an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance to the wife and 2 children of the petitioner herein. 2. The delay is gross. Sufficient reasons have not been shown. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am proceeding to dispose of the revision petition itself on merits. It is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondents in this application to condone the delay. I take a lenient view. 3. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. 4. Number the R.P.F.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- R.P.F.C. No.196 of 2008 4