IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 177 of 2008 ------------------------------ (M.C.NO. 17/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- MANUAL DOUGLAS, AGED 40, PANICKASSERY HOUSE, PERUMBILLY, NJARAKKAL (P.O) ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SMT.R.LEELA. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.M.JACOB, S/O.MANI, AGED 70 YEARS, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, ELANGUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI. 3. MARY JACOB, AGED 62, W/O.P.M.JACOB, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, ELANGUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 177 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order passed under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. by the Family Court under which he is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- each per mensem to the claimants – his father and mother. 2. The relationship is admitted. Liability to pay maintenance is not disputed in substance. The petitioner contended that he used to pay Rs.5,000/- per mensem for the maintenance of his two parents regularly. He offered to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensem to each of them. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that though he was admittedly paying a total amount of Rs.5,000/- per mensem earlier for the maintenance of his parents and R.P.(FC) No. 177 of 2008 -: 2 :- though he now claims to be able to pay only Rs.3,000/- per mensem as maintenance to them, it would be reasonable to direct payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per mensem to them. 3. The petitioner is admittedly employed as Radio Officer and admittedly when he has employment, he gets handsome income. The parents asserted that he was getting Rs.90,000/- a month. He admitted that he was getting Rs.44,000/- towards salary when he was so employed. Of course, he has a contention that he does not have continuous employment. The parents have other children also, without any dispute. 4. What is the grievance? The short grievance urged is that the petitioner had offered to pay Rs.1,500/- to each of his parents. The court had directed an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem as maintenance to each of them. This is excessive. The quantum deserves to be reduced. 5. To say the least, I am least impressed by the nature of the challenge raised. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a court of revision exercising correctional and supervisory jurisdiction. This meaningless legal battle between the parents and their son must end as quickly as possible. I am not R.P.(FC) No. 177 of 2008 -: 3 :- persuaded to agree that there is any substance in the challenge raised. The revisional jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot certainly be invoked to reduce the maintenance awarded by the court from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,500/- per mensem as claimed by the petitioner on any other amount. The quantum fixed by the court below, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, does appear to me to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. It is consistent with the materials available about the needs of the parents who admittedly have some other source of income and the means of the petitioner even going by his admitted version. 6. This R.P.(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge