IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 311 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.40/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- BASHEER.M.M, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, VALAYIL VEEDU,CHUNGAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT MUKKAYIL HOUSE, RAZIYA MANZIL, KUTHIRAPANTHI WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SUBAIDA, AGED 51 YEARS, THEKKE POLA, SANATHANAPURAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 311 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed to assail an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to his wife/claimant. 2. Marriage is admitted. A contention is raised that there was a divorce. Except the oral evidence of the interested claimant/wife and the petitioner/husband, there is nothing to show that there has been liquidation of the matrimony by pronouncement of talak. The decision in Shamir Ara v. State of U.P. (2002 (3) KLT 537) is authority for the proposition that if the plea raised is unsubstantiated, it cannot bring to termination the legal matrimony between the spouses. That being so, the finding of the court below that the matrimony continues has got to be accepted. 3. The only other contention raised is about the means of the petitioner. Admittedly he has another wife and two children. Admittedly he was running a textile shop. He raised a contention R.P.F.C.No. 311 of 2008 2 that he has closed the shop. That contention remains unsubstantiated. Of course, the wife residing separately did not also make any specific evidence available to the court to determine the income and quantum thereof. It is in these circumstances that the learned Judge of the Family Court chose to come to the conclusion that the husband, who admittedly was running a textile shop and has not adduced any evidence to show that he has discontinued such business, can be mulcted with liability to pay Rs.1,500/- p.m. to his wife. 4. 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. By any stretch of imagination and in any view of the matter, the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court in the light of the evidence available about the needs of the claimant and means of the petitioner cannot be said to be excessive warranting invocation of such revisional jurisdiction. 5. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge R.P.F.C.No. 311 of 2008 3 tm