IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 52 of 2006() --------------------- MC.33/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- SAVAD MOULAVI, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 42, OLIPPUVILA VEEDU, CHA6THAKUNNU, PANGODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. SHEEJA, D/O.SOUDA BEEVI, AGED 33, PANAYIL VEEDU, NILAMEL, MURUKKUMON MURI, NILAMEL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. MUBEEN, S/O.SAVAD MOULAVI, AGED 11, PANAYIL VEEDU, NILAMEL, MU5RUKKUMON MURI, NILAMEL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R1 & R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C No.52 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this Revision Petition challenges an order passed by the Family Court directing him to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per mensem to his child. The petitioner has already divorced the mother of the child. Both spouses have remarried also. The claimant/child came to court through his mother and had staked a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was contended that the child was seriously afflicted with heart disease and he had to undergo a surgery. He is on permanent medication. He was a student in a reputed school. His medical and educational expenses also had to be met. Because of the physical ailment, the child had to be taken care of additionally and all this required huge amount of money. It was, in these circumstances, prayed that maintenance may be ordered @ Rs.500/- per mensem. That was the claim in the petition. Later an application for amendment was made and claim for maintenance was staked @ Rs.2,000/- per mensem. R.P.F.C No.52 of 2006 2 2. The petitioner admitted paternity. But contended that the child can be paid maintenance only @ Rs.1,000/- per mensem. The petitioner was earlier employed abroad. He has now come back to India. There were assertions and counter assertions about the income which he derives after his return to India. He, of course, asserted that he gets only an income of Rs.200/- per day working as an Arabic translator. He gets employment only for 3 days in a week. In these circumstances, he contended that he is not able to pay any amount in excess of Rs.1,000/-. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The mother of the claimant/child examined herself as PW1. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The petitioner examined himself as DW1. He proved Exts.B1 and B2. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to claim maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per mensem. Accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 5. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in any view of the matter, the petitioner R.P.F.C No.52 of 2006 3 should not have been directed to pay any amount in excess of Rs.1,000/- per mensem as offered by him. The counsel then contends that in any view of the matter till the amendment to Section 125 Cr.P.C was introduced w.e.f 24.09.01 he cannot be directed to pay any amount in excess of Rs.500/- per mensem. 6. I have considered both these contentions. Section 125 Cr.P.C was amended w.e.f 24.09.01 to remove the cap on the total amount which could be directed to be paid as maintenance to claimant. The petition was subsequently amended and the amendment in the absence of specification must take effect from the date of the petition. The petitioner having offered to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per mensem, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to direct payment of any amount less than Rs.1,000/- for any period of the claim. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that till 24.09.01-the date of the statutory amendment, the petitioner can be directed to pay only the amount of Rs.1,000/- as agreed by him. 7. The amendment of the petition was ordered on 24.02.04. After 24.09.01, there is no cap on the maximum amount that can be awarded. The amount fixed by the court below can hence be directed to be paid w.e.f 24.09.01. R.P.F.C No.52 of 2006 4 8. The only question that survives is whether the direction to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- is excessive. The petitioner admittedly had has been working as an employee abroad for a long period of time. After he returned to India, according to him he works for Rs.600/- a week as an Arabic translator. The meager indications available from the evidence of PW1 and Rw1 suggest that the petitioner is not speaking of the truth about his income. We also have Ext.A5 which shows that the petitioner was working as a managing director of Kaseb Travels and Tours at Nedumbassery Airport as also Oman and U.A.E. That he was the managing director of the said establishment is not disputed though it is contended that he is not continuing in such capacity. 9. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of revision exercising supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. Unless the findings of fact entered by subordinate courts and the discretions exercised by them are grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction cannot be lightly invoked. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that in any view of the matter considering the materials available about the needs of the sick child/claimant and R.P.F.C No.52 of 2006 5 the means of the petitioner herein, the direction to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem does not in any way warrant interference. 10. In the result, this R.P.F.C is allowed in part. The petitioner shall be liable to pay only an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) per mensem as maintenance for the period 01.06.1999 (the date of the claim) to 24.09.01 (the date of the amendment of the statute). For the period after 24.09.01, the direction to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) per mensem is upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-