IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 216 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.580/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- PARASSERY ALAVIKUTTY, AGED 33 AYEARS S/O. KUNHALAN KUTTY, KARINGATHODI HOUSE MUNDAKULAM, MUTHUVALLUR POST REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KUNHALAN KUTTY, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY MUNDAKULAM, MUTHUVALLUR POST. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------- 1. SAUDABI, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. LATE MONUDHEEN MANGATTUCHALIL, PARAMBUKUTHU HOUSE OLAVATTOOR POST. 2. DIYA AMAL, (MINOR), 2 ½ YEARS, D/O. PARASSERY ALAVIKUTTY, MANGATTUCHALIL DO. DO. REP. BY GUARDIAN, 1ST PETITIONER. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 216 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500 and Rs.1,000/- p.m. respectively to the claimants, his wife and child. Marriage and paternity are admitted. Separate residence is admitted. The husband is employed abroad and there is no offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. The wife claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2500/- p.m. respectively for herself and the minor child aged 2 ½ years. 2. The husband resisted the claim for maintenance on two grounds. First of all it is contended that the wife is not unable to maintain herself and is having employment by way of embroidery work. It was next contended that the quantum of maintenance claimed is excessive. R.P.F.C.No. 216 of 2008 2 3. The wife examined herself as PW1 and a witness as PW2. The Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner was examined as RW1. Though there is a contention that the wife is having employment and her own independent source of income, she has refuted the same and there is no material in support of that assertion. The said finding of the Family Court, I am satisfied, does not warrant interference at all. 4. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, it is not disputed that the petitioner is employed abroad. The Power of Attorney holder wants the court to believe that the petitioner gets only an income of Rs.3000/- According to the wife his income is Rs.40,000/- Annex.A3 shows that he has properties also belonging to him. 5. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of revision exercising supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. Unless the findings of fact and the discretions exercised by the subordinate courts are patently erroneous and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, such correctional jurisdiction cannot be lightly invoked. In the facts and circumstances of this case I find no vice vitiating the R.P.F.C.No. 216 of 2008 3 impugned order that can persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order. 6. This revision petition is in these circumstances dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm