IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 251 of 2008() ---------------------- M.C.NO.781/07 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. PETITIONER : RESPONDENT: ---------------------------- APPUKKUTTAN @ HASKAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PODIYAN NADIKUZHIYIL VEEDU, MUKKUCHERIYAM VERUMPURACKAL, KADANNAMANNA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT; ------------------------ MYMOONA @ MOHANA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.ASKAR @ APPUKUTTAN, MANI QUARTERS, MANAKADA, ARIPRA P.O., IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 251 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this RP(FC) assails an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem to the claimant – his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. There is no offer to maintain his wife on condition that if she lives with him. 3. What then is the defence? It was contended that the wife was not unable to maintain herself. It is submitted that she has an employment. Though it was asserted that she could look upto her daughter to maintain her and that she is entitled to rent of Rs.1,000/- per mensem. There was absolutely no material in support of those assertions. The wife had contended that the petitioner is a contractor earning R.P.(FC) No. 251 of 2008 -: 2 :- Rs.20,000/- per mensem and that he has agricultural income of Rs.25,000/- per mensem. She was unable to specifically substantiate these assertions. In the course of evidence, the petitioner admitted that he has an income of Rs.200/- per day. The learned Judge of the Family Court moderately estimated the income of the husband on the basis of that assumption to be Rs.4,000/- per mensem. It was, in these circumstances, that the amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensem was awarded as maintenance. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist to persuade this Court to invoke and exercise the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the discretions exercised by the subordinate courts. Unless such discretions are found to be grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to failure/miscarriage of justice, a court of revision must be slow to invoke its correctional jurisdiction. 5. On the basis of the materials placed before court, I am unable to agree that the court below has committed any such gross error or perversity in fixing the quantum of maintenance at R.P.(FC) No. 251 of 2008 -: 3 :- Rs.1,500/- per mensem to the claimant/wife. The order does appeal to me as fair, reasonable, cogent and just. It does not warrant interference in revision. 6. This RP(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge