IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 39 of 2007() --------------------- MC.370/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- SAITHALI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, MANAMULLIL VEEDU, VALAPPUZHA, KARUVATOOR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 336. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.M.B.SANDEEP RESPONDENTS/PTITIONERS & STATE: ---------------- 1. RAMLA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.BHAVA HAJI, C/O.KHALID, SWATHI JUNCTIONL, COURT ROAD, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED ASLAM, AGED 16 YEARS, S/O.RAMLA, C/O.KHALID, SWATHI JUNCTION, COURT ROAD, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. HAFSATH, AGED 12 YEARS, D/O.RAMLA, C/O.KHALID, SWATHI JUNCTION, COURT ROAD, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. ABU SHAHAD, AGED 12 YEARS, S/O. RAMLA, C/O.KHALID, SWATHI JUNCTION, COURT ROAD, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R1 R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 39 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance to his wife and three minor children at the rate of Rs.500/- (for the wife) and Rs.400/- p.m. (for the children). 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The petitioner has re-married also, it is conceded. Liability to pay maintenance to the children and the fact that maintenance has not been paid to them are not disputed. So far as the claimant/wife is concerned, a contention is raised that the lady was living in adultery. The alleged adulterer is a person by name Anwar @ Muthu. The claimant/wife took up a contention that Anwar @ Muthu is not an adulterer. He was a domestic help when she was compelled to shift her residence from the matrimonial home on account of cruelty heaped on her. He is a person, who is of assistance to her and the three children. He R.P.F.C.No. 39 of 2007 2 was married. The lady whom the said Anwar @ Muthu married was examined as PW2 in support of the assertion that her husband was only helping the claimant/wife as a domestic help. 3. To prove the case of adultery, the burden rests heavily on the husband. He examined CPW1. Except that the wife had taken up separate residence and Anwar @ Muthu was also there in that house, no other circumstance has been pointed out to prove adultery. In fact in the course of cross examination of PW1 a specific suggestion was put to the claimant/wife whether she is willing to come and reside with the husband. In addition to himself as a witness (CPW1) to prove adultery, he examined CPW2, whose evidence also does not travel any farther than to suggest that the lady along with her children was residing in a house where this person, Anwar @ Muthu was also present. In short, there is not a semblance of acceptable data to reject the explanation of PW1 or to come to the conclusion that she was having an adulterous relationship with the said Anwar @ Muthu, who, PW1 explained was only a domestic help. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge of the Family Court has R.P.F.C.No. 39 of 2007 3 committed no error warranting revisional interference in coming to the conclusion that not only the three children, but also the claimant/wife is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. I must alertly remind myself the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a court of revision exercising supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. It is by now trite that the discretion exercised by the courts below and the findings of fact rendered shall not be lightly interfered with invoking such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. To justify invocation of such correctional jurisdiction, this Court must be satisfied that the findings of fact are grossly erroneous or perverse and that such vice leads to failure/miscarriage of justice. I find no reason to invoke such revisional jurisdiction in this case. 7. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm