IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 291 of 2008() ---------------------- M.C.NO.732/07 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- PICHAMVEETTIL ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, PICHAMVEETTIL HOUSE, VELLMKUNNU P.O., THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, HAKEEM P.V. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. HASEEBA, D/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, MANANATTU VAKERIVEETIL HOUSE, CHELEMPRA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VASEEM ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.HASEEBA (MINOR) REP. BY MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN, HASEEBA, MANANATTU VAKERIVEETTIL HOUSE, CHELEMPRA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 291 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 ORDER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who has suffered an order under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively to his wife aged 21 years and his minor child aged 4 ½ years. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The petitioner is employed abroad. The wife is residing at her parental home now. The claimant/wife tendered evidence as P.W.1 and the Power-or-Attorney holder of the petitioner tendered evidence as R.W.1. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for separate maintenance. There was only the interested version of the R.P.(FC) No. 291 of 2008 -: 2 :- claimant/wife as P.W.1 and the version of the Power-of-Attorney holder of the petitioner as R.W.1 about the means of the petitioner. There was an undisputed circumstance that the petitioner was abroad and was hence not able to tender evidence before court. It was, in these circumstances, that the learned Judge fixed the quantum of maintenance payable as Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantum of maintenance fixed is grossly excessive and perversely disproportionate to the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimants. 4. I am unable to agree. The revisional powers of superintendence and correction cannot be invoked as a matter of course. Such jurisdiction of superintendence and correction can be invoked to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate courts and the discretion exercised by the subordinate courts only when such findings of fact and exercise of discretions are grossly erroneous or perverse. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to find any such vice vitiating the impugned order; nor can it be said that the order works out failure or miscarriage of justice. R.P.(FC) No. 291 of 2008 -: 3 :- 5. A person employed abroad is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively to his wife and minor child. The counsel contends that the petitioner though he was abroad at the relevant time and was hence unable to tender evidence personally, he was remaining abroad without any employment. There is absolutely no satisfactory material to substantiate or support this contention. The court below, according to me, committed no error warranting revisional correction in assuming that the petitioner was employed abroad. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that this impugned order does not warrant revisional correction and this RP(FC) only deserves to be dismissed in limine. I do so. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 291 of 2008 -: 4 :-