IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 RPFC.No. 249 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.729/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER : ----------------- V.ABDUL RASHEED,S/O.HYDROSE, VETTIYAM VEETTIL HOUSE,KERALDEESHWARPURAM POST, THANALUR,TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. A.SAFIYA,29 YEARS,D/O.UMMER, ALUNGAL HOUSE,KERADHISHWARAPURAM P.O,THANALUR. 2. RASHAD,12 YEARS,S/O.V.ABDUL RASHED, ALUNGAL HOUSE,KERADHISHWARAPURAM P.O,THANALUR. (MINOR). 3. SULEERA,11 YEARS,D/O.V.ABDUL RASHEED, ALUNGAL HOUSE,KERADHISHWARAPURAM P.O,THANALUR. (MINOR). 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKUALM. BY SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.(F.C.) No. 249 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the direction issued to him to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to his wife and two children. The children are aged 13 years and 12 years respectively and are attending high school classes. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is not disputed. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner, who was employed abroad for some length of time and is admittedly employed now in India, must be in a position to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- for the wife and Rs.1,000/- and Rs.800/- respectively for the two children. 2. The short grievance raised in this revision petition is that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is excessive. It is prayed that the quantum may be reduced. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality RPFC.249/07 : 2 : and contours of the revisional jurisdiction which I am called upon to exercise. It is the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction which is sought to be invoked. Due allowance must be given to the advantage with the trial court has in the matter of appreciation of data and inferences drawn on perceptions made by it. Unless the discretions exercised are found to be grossly erroneous, illogical and irrational, such revisional jurisdiction of correction and superintendence cannot and should not be invoked. Having considered the impugned order and having heard the learned counsel, I find absolutely no reason, in the facts and circumstances of this case, which can justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. The quantum fixed does not at any rate warrant interference by invoking such jurisdiction. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks