IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 66 of 2008() --------------------- MC.310/2005 OF FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- SREEKRISHNA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE MAYILA MOOLYA, RESIDING AT MITHADAKKA HOUSE, BATTAMPADY VILLAGE AND POST, PANAJE, PUTHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND STATE --------------------------------- 1. BABY LATHA, AGED 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARAYANA MANGALAM, P.O.KUMBALAM, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.K.ANAND THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.F.C. No. 66 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to the claimant wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. There is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. 3. The only relevant question to be considered is about the quantum of maintenance which is liable to be paid. The claimant examined herself as PW1 and asserted that the petitioner gets an income of Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner, on oath, stated that he gets an income of only Rs.2,000/- per month. He produced Ext.B1 salary certificate. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, taking into account all the relevant inputs, RPFC.66/08 : 2 : came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month can safely be directed to be paid as monthly maintenance. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order. That is the order which is assailed before me. 5. What is the grievance? The grievance of the petitioner is that the quantum fixed is excessive. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction which I am called upon to exercise. It is the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction which is sought to be invoked. Going by the needs of the claimant, a young woman aged 23 years, the direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month cannot be said to be excessive. We now come to the means of the petitioner. Satisfactory evidence has not been placed before the court. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, looked into the probable amount which a person like the petitioner will be able to pay. I am, in these RPFC.66/08 : 3 : circumstances, of the opinion that the direction to pay Rs.1,500/- per month appears to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. In any view of the matter, the same does not warrant interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks