IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 49 of 2007() --------------------- MC.121/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- PONNACHAN SAIDALAVI, 26 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED KUTTY, AMBALAPPALLI VEEDU, P.O.THENHIPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. MANGATTU CHALI MYMOONATH, 22 YEARS, D/O. KUTTYALI, THAZHECHALYIL VEEDU, P.O. OLAVATTUR. 2. FATHIMA HIBA, 3 YEARS (MINOR), D/O.MYMOONATH, (REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.49 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order in favour of the wife and child obliging the husband/father to pay monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C at the rate of Rs.1,700/- per mensum to the wife aged about 22 years and Rs.800/- per mensum for the child aged about 3 years. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are admitted. Before me, no contention is raised that the direction to pay separate maintenance is not correct. The only contention raised is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 2. That the wife and child are unable to maintain themselves is not disputed at all. The husband admittedly has twenty cents of landed property. About his employment, there is serious dispute. The wife asserts that he is a painter. The husband asserts that he is a mason. According to him, his daily income is only Rs.150/-. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the fact that even an ordinary unskilled coolie worker is getting an amount of Rs.150/- per day for such R.P.F.C.No.49/2007 2 unskilled employment. It is, in these circumstances, the learned Judge of the Family Court took the view that the amount of Rs.1700/- to the wife and Rs.800/- to the child would be absolutely reasonable. 3. The petitioner has a contention that he has to look after his mother also. I must alertly be conscious of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. It is, by now trite, that a revisional court shall not lightly invoke its jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Unless the findings of fact rendered and the discretions exercised by a Family Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C are found to be grossly erroneous and perverse which vice in turn leads the miscarriage of justice, such revisional jurisdiction cannot and need not be invoked. The petitioner has properties measuring twenty cents. He is a skilled worker whether he be a painter or a mason. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, to me, it appears that it would not be unreasonable to assume that the petitioner must be earning an income of about Rs.6,000/- and that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- out of such R.P.F.C.No.49/2007 3 monthly income to his wife and child would not be perverse, nor can it be said to amount to miscarriage of justice. At any rate, I am not persuaded to agree that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction can or deserves to be invoked to interfere with the exercise of the discretion by the learned Judge of the Family Court on that aspect. 4. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.49/2007 4 R.P.F.C.No.49/2007 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008