IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 273 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.466/2007 of Family Court, Malappuram .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------- BABU, AGED 24, S/O.RAMAN, MANNARAKKAL HOUSE, P.O. KAYALAM, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------- KAMALA, 21 YEARS, D/O.BODY CHETTIYAR, KIYATTU KUNNATHU, PALLIYALI, P.O. VENGARA, MALAPPURAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.273 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this R.P.F.C assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensum . 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. The petitioner is not willing to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. He instead staked a claim for divorce on the assertion that she is insane. The petition for divorce stands dismissed. 3. In any view of the matter, the liability to pay maintenance cannot be accepted at all. As stated earlier, marriage and separate residence are admitted and there is no offer to main the wife on condition that she lives with him. In fact the specific assertion is that the petitioner is not willing to live with his wife. What remains is only the quantum. An amount of Rs.1,500/- has been awarded. The petitioner is not shown to have any specific or stable employment. It is said that he is a coolie. The wife asserted that he gets an income of Rs.250/- per day. According to him, he gets an income of Rs.150/- per day. There is also dispute as to the number of days on which he can R.P.F.C.No.273/08 2 secure employment. The court took note of the fact on broad probabilities and came to the reasonable conclusion that the petitioner must be getting an amount of about Rs.4,000/- per mensum as monthly income from his employment. The court directed that he should share an amount of Rs.1,500/- to his wife. The crux of the contention is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Unless findings of fact recorded and discretions exercised by subordinate criminal courts are so grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to failure or miscarriage of justice, such correctional and supervisory jurisdiction shall not be lightly invoked by courts of revision. I am not satisfied that the quantum fixed by the court below - going by the evidence available about the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimant, suffers from any vice which would justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. 5. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.273/08 3 R.P.F.C.No.273/08 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008