IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 431 of 2007(Y) ----------------------- MC.199/2003 of Family Court, Ernakulam .................... : PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- P.V.JOHNSON, S/O.VARGHESE, PUTTILITHARA HOUSE, INCHAKKAL ROAD, MARADU P.O. ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.PREMCHAND SMT.A.A.DILSHAH RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. MINI, W/O.P.V.JOHNSON, MUTTUNGAL HOUSE, POONITHURA. 2. JOJO, S/O.MINI, AGED 7 YEARS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT. BY ADV. SMT.SALLY THOMAS CHACKO FOR R1,2 SRI.P.T.THOMAS PERAKATH FOR R1,2 SMT.HEMA.R FOR R1,2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.431 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September 2008 O R D E R This R.P.F.C is filed by the petitioner who has suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C to maintain the claimants - his wife and minor child aged three years. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are admitted. There is no contention that the petitioner is willing to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with him. Though the claimants contended that there was matrimonial cruelty, that allegation was denied. Be that as it may, in the absence of an offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him, it is not necessary for this court now to proceed to consider such grounds urged by the claimant/wife to justify her separate residence. 3. The dispute was only one regarding quantum of maintenance. Admittedly, the petitioner has the responsibility of maintaining his mother and father. In addition to that, one child born in the matrimony is also residing with the petitioner herein. On the side of the claimants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined. R.P.F.C.No.431/07 2 Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the petitioner herein, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the petitioner, a skilled worker, admittedly (and allegedly running a workshop, according to the claimants) must be getting a daily income of Rs.300/- and at any rate, an amount of Rs.6,000/- per mensum as his earnings from him employment. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the fact that the petitioner has six persons including himself depending on such earnings. He was allotted an extra share and the court found that an amount of Rs.6000/- must be available to be shared in seven shares. It is accordingly that an amount of Rs.850/- per mensum was fixed as the amount of maintenance payable to the claimants. There was evidence that the first claimant/wife has suffered an accident and injuries consequent to that. The court found that in addition, an amount of Rs.12,000/- in all liable to be paid towards medical expenses of the claimants, Rs.7000/- was awarded to the medical expenses of the first claimant/wife who had suffered an accident where as an amount of Rs.5,000/- was R.P.F.C.No.431/07 3 awarded for the medical expenses of the second claimant, minor child. 4. The contention raised in this R.P.F.C is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. The liability to pay maintenance to the wife and child is not disputed. The dispute is only regarding the quantum of maintenance awarded. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court sitting as a court of revision, exercising correctional and supervisory jurisdiction. Unless the discretions exercised are grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, a court of revision will not lightly invoke such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I note that the court below had adverted to all aspects of the matter. I am satisfied that the quantum fixed is fair, reasonable and just and the same does not warrant revisional interference at all. 5. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.431/07 4 R.P.F.C.No.431/07 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008