IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 342 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.148/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------ P.CHANDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.LATE NARAYANAN GURUKKAL, POYIL HOUSE CHERUVANNUR AMSOM PAMBIRIKUNNU DESOM,MEPPAYUR, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,MRPPSYUT PSL. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONERS --------------- 1. K.SUJINI, AGED 42 YEARS D/O.LATE KRISHNAN GURUKKAL POYIL HOUSE CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, PAMBIRIKUNNU DESOM, MEPPAYUR KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THEERTHA (MINOR) D/O.CHANDRAN AGED 17 YEARS, POYIL HOUSE DO..DO...~ 3. PUNYA PRIYA (MINOR) D/O.CHANDRAN AGED14 YEARS, POYIL HOUSE DO...DO.. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.342 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance to his wife and 2 children @ Rs.1,000/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.750/- respectively. The challenge is limited to the impugned order in so far as it relates to the claimant/wife. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. There is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with the petitioner. In fact the petitioner had filed an application for divorce and that stands dismissed as per the common order. 3. In the nature of the contentions raised on the only question that survives for consideration is the quantum of maintenance payable to the wife. The petitioner is a Military pensioner and admittedly, as seen from Ext.A3 produced before the court below, he gets a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. He is aged 43 years and there are indications to show that the petitioner is employed also. R.P.F.C. No.342 of 2008 2 4. Viewed from any angle, I am not persuaded to agree that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction deserves or warrants interference on the ground that the quantum of maintenance awarded for the wife is excessive. I am, in these circumstances, of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from no vice which can persuade me to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-