IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 226 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.93/2002 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------ K.V. UMMER, S/O.KOYAKKUTTY HAJI, KAITHAVALAPPIL, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM, P.O. KANNAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. THEKKARAKATHU SUBAIDA, D/O.MUHAMMED, KUZHIPPURAM, P.O. IRINGALLOOR (VIA), VENGARA. 2. MOHAMMED FAISAL (MINOR), REP. BY MOTHER/GUARDIAN, THEKKARAKATHU SUBAIDA, AGED 17, KUZHIPPURAM, P.O.IRINGALLOOR VIA, VENGARA. 3. FASEELA (MINOR), REP. BY MOTHER/GUARDIAN, THEKKERAKATHU SUBAIDA, AGED 14, KUZHIPPURAM, P.O. IRINGALLOOR VIA, VENGARA. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.226 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay maintenance @ Rs.750/- per mensem to the 1st claimant his wife. The amount awarded to claimants 2 and 3, his minor children are not in challenge in this revision petition. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is conceded. Paternity is admitted. The remarriage of the petitioner is also admitted. There is a direction to pay maintenance from 30.03.2002. The claim petition was filed in 2002. It was earlier disposed of. The challenge was raised earlier before this Court. The order passed in favour of the minor child was upheld, but the claim of the 1st claimant/wife was sent back to the court below for fresh disposal. There was an offer to maintain her and it was to attempt reconciliation that the order of remand was passed. 3. Surprisingly by the time the matter reached the court below, the petitioner who had offered reconciliation had married again. The court below, in these circumstances, came to the R.P.F.C. No.226 of 2008 2 conclusion that the wife is entitled for separate maintenance @ Rs.750/- per mensem. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on various grounds. First of all he contends that at any rate he having contended divorce and produced Exts.D2 and D3, the claimant/wife must be held to be not entitled for maintenance subsequent to the divorce. Admittedly the requirement of a valid divorce under Shamim Ara v. State of U.P [2002(3) KLT 537(S.C)] has not been complied with or satisfied. There is no contention even that there was any attempt to appoint Arbitrators and settle the controversy regarding divorce. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the plea of divorce was rightly rejected by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 5. The counsel contends that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The petitioner is disabled and he relies on Ext.D1. It is not as though the disability even allegedly disentitles him to do any type of work. He is employed as a coolie. It is not disputed. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that a meagre amount of Rs.750/- awarded does not at all warrant revisional interference. R.P.F.C. No.226 of 2008 3 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier only an amount of Rs.300/- per mensem was awarded and the claimant/wife at that stage had not challenged that order. Hence it is contended that at any rate the maintenance may be limited to Rs.300/- per mensem. I cannot ignore the fluctuation in the purchasing power of the rupee. In 2002 if Rs.300/- were awarded and the same were promptly paid, the petitioner would not have faced this predicament. I am satisfied that direction to pay maintenance @ Rs.750/- per mensem does not warrant interference. 7. I must remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction. Unless findings of fact entered and the discretion exercised by the subordinate criminal court are grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, no court of revision should lightly invoke its correctional and supervisory jurisdiction. 8. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-