IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 298 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2007 IN OP 721/06 & 560/06 IN MC.566/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER : ------------------------------------- MOHAMMADALI T.K., 35 YEARS, S/O. KUTTIYADI, THONDIKODAN HOUSE, P.O. PARAMBILPEEDIKA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL SALIM T.K., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. KUTTIYALI, NARAMCHULLI HOUSE, PUTHUR DESOM, PARAMBILPEEDIKA P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. SMT. ASMABI C.P., 29 YEARS, D/O. MAMMAD HAJI, CHOLAPOTTAYIL HOUSE, NEDIYIRIPPU P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. HAYA, 4 ½ YEARS (MINOR), D/O. MOHAMMADALI, 3. HAMTH, 1 ½ YEARS (MINOR), (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT) 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P. (FC)No. 298 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is filed by the petitioner who has suffered an order under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/-, Rs.1,200/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively to his wife aged 29 years and minor children aged 4 ½ and 1 ½ years. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. That the petitioner is employed abroad for the past about 15 years is not disputed. That he has contracted a second marriage fully conscious of the liabilities which he has to meet in respect of his present wife and two children is also accepted. The claimant/wife examined herself as P.W.1 and asserted that her husband earns a monthly income of Rs.50,000/- abroad. Nothing better than her oral evidence was R.P. (FC)No. 298 of 2008 -: 2 :- produced. The petitioner did not examine himself and instead examined his Power-of-Attorney holder. The nature of his employment or the quantum of his income were not revealed by the petitioner either in the counter statement or through his Power-of-Attorney holder. The court below, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that the maintenance can be awarded at the rates specified above. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The only grievance raised is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. I have adverted to all the relevant factual aspects above. In the given circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree that the court below committed any error warranting revisional interference and correction. I must alertly take note of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Unless findings of fact and discretions exercised by the subordinate courts are so grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage or failure of justice, such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction cannot and should not be lightly invoked. I need only mention that I R.P. (FC)No. 298 of 2008 -: 3 :- find absolutely nothing vitiating the impugned order which can persuade or invoke the revisional jurisdiction. 4. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge