IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 250 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.717/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER : PETITIONER ----------------- M.P.SURESH, S/O.NEELAKANDAN RATHEESH NIVAS, MELEPUTHIYA PARAMBU, ATHIYARKUNNU PO., VELLARA, KOTTAPPURAM. MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEVAYANI.A.K., D/O.A.K.NAGAN BABU NIVAS KOTTAKKUNNU, ERUVETTI PO., CHENGARA, KAVANNUR, ERNADU, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.250 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this Revision Petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay maintenance to his wife @ Rs.2,000/- per mensem. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. There is no offer that the petitioner is willing to maintain the petitioner on condition that she lives with him. In fact, the contention is that she is sick and ailing. She has some mental ailment and therefore the petitioner has moved the matrimonial court to secure divorce, it is contended. 2. Admittedly the petitioner enjoys robust health. He is aged 27 years. Going by his version, he gets only an amount of Rs.150/- per day as wages in addition to his food. 3. Thus the only short question for consideration was the quantum of maintenance payable. The court below has rightly taking note of the admission of the petitioner fixed the quantum @ Rs.2000/- per mensem. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order. What is the grievance ? The contention is that the R.P.F.C. No.250 of 2008 2 quantum fixed is excessive. I am called upon to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Unless the discretion exercised is grossly erroneous and perverse and the same in turn leads to miscarriage or failure of justice, revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction shall not lightly be invoked. I am not satisfied that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction deserves to be invoked. 5. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-