IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 309 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.162/2004 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/CR.PETITIONER -------------------------------------- MAHABOOB, S/O. MOHAMMED KUNJU, NIRAPPATHU VEEDU, VADAKARA DESOM VELLORE PANCHAYAT, VAIKOM TALUK NOW RESIDING AT NO.C.36, BLOCK APMC MARKET YARD SINGENA AGREHARA HOM ROAD, BANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. NASIYA MEHABOOB, D/O. THANGAL KUNJU NAYANA MANZIL, VADAKARA DESOM VELLORE PANCHAYAT, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. NAYANA MEHABOOB, D/O. MEHABOOB, DO. DO. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 309 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the petitioner to assail an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to his wife, the first claimant. There is of course a further direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to his children till they attain majority. They have already attained majority and that part of the order is not challenged. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. A contention of divorce was raised though there is no evidence in support of the plea of divorce. That the petitioner has married again is also virtually admitted. The wife claimed maintenance asserting that the petitioner is a businessman. He was employed abroad earlier. He has substantial assets. In these circumstances maintenance was claimed at the rate of Rs.5,000/- R.P.F.C.No. 309 of 2008 2 3. The petitioner contends that he has no means now. It is true that he was employed abroad earlier. It was also conceded that he had purchased as many as four lorries in the name of the first claimant wife. Though it was asserted that he was having business in Bangalore, he raised a plea that he was only a driver working in the vehicle of his brother. 4. The claimant wife and two children of the petitioner born in her tendered evidence about the means. No contra oral evidence was adduced. Exts.B1 to B3 were produced to show that the lorries were purchased in the name of the first claimant wife. She asserted that the lorries were not available in her possession now and that they have been taken away by the financier consequent to default in payment of loan. 5. The only question that survives for consideration is whether the quantum of maintenance fixed does warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Any court must realistically take note of the difficulties of an estranged wife to prove the precise means of her husband. This is a R.P.F.C.No. 309 of 2008 3 case where the husband has set up a divorce unsuccessfully and he has admittedly remarried also. She resides in a house situated in a 40 cents land belonging to the spouses. Admittedly the petitioner was employed abroad and atleast four lorries were purchased by him in her name. It was asserted that the claimant wife was managing the lorries in the absence of the petitioner. 6. I am not persuaded to agree that the quantum fixed is so grossly erroneous or excessive as to justify interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. It is by now trite that a court of revision must be slow to invoke its revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Unless the findings of fact or exercise of discretion are so grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to failure/miscarriage of justice, such jurisdiction need not be invoked by the court, it is trite. I am not persuaded to agree that any circumstances exist warranting or justifying invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. 7. A contention was raised that maintenance ordered from the date of the petition is not justified. I am unable to agree. Exercise of that discretion also does not warrant interference in revision. R.P.F.C.No. 309 of 2008 4 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that an execution petition is pending and the learned Judge of the Family Court may be directed to give the petitioner further time to discharge his liability. He can raise this contention before the Family Court. If substantial payment is made towards the arrears due, the Family Court shall take into consideration that aspect and the request of the petitioner for further time shall be considered. 9. With the above observations this revision petition is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm