IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 318 of 2008() ----------------------------------- AGAINST MC.NO.96/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DTD.11/06/2008 REVISION PETITIONER: COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HAMSA, S/O.KUNJALAVI, SRAMBIKKAL, POMBRA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SUHARA, D/O.ABDHU, KANDAM VADI, CHANDRAGIRI AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKAD. 2. HISANA, D/O.HAMSA, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.318 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this RP(FC) assails an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensum to the claimant – his minor child. 2. Paternity is not disputed. The short dispute is about the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid. The petitioner is a Gulf returnee. He was employed abroad for some length of time. He was employed as a driver there. He has returned to India. Though he asserted that he has only 37 cents of land with a house in his possession, in the course of cross-examination, when confronted with Exts.P1 to P3, he had to concede that in addition to the said 37 cents of land, taxes are paid in his name for an extent of 75 cents and 4.20 Acres also. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, directed payment of an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensum as maintenance for the minor child aged about 3 years on the date of the application. 3. The only contention is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is perversely excessive. I am unable to accept the said contention. The quantum of maintenance fixed in the facts and circumstances of this case does appear to me to be R.P.F.C.No.318/2008 2 absolutely justified. It is consistent with the evidence available about the needs of the claimant as also the means of the petitioner herein. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is such as to justify or warrant the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. It is by now trite that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction cannot be invoked lightly to interfere with the discretions exercised by subordinate criminal courts or to offset the findings of fact rendered by them. Unless the findings of facts rendered and the discretions exercised are so grossly erroneous and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, a court of revision must be slow to invoke such jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I am not satisfied that the impugned order suffers any such vice as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. 4. This revision petition is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.318/2008 3 R.P.F.C.No.318/2008 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008