IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 RPFC.No. 367 of 2007 ------------------------------ (ORDER DATED 31/07/2007 IN M.C.NO.15/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD) ........... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- HABEEB ABDULLA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT PANNIPPARA, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. LAREEFA, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.HABEEB ABDULLA, D/O.C.ABDUL RAHEEM. 2. SAJIDA, AGED 14 YEARS, D/O.HABEEB ABDULLA. 3. MUHAMMED SAJJAD, AGED 12 YEARS, S/O.HABEEB ABDULLA. 4. AHAMMAD SADIQ, AGED 8 YEARS, S/O.HABEEB ABDULLA, MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1, ALL ARE RESIDING AT SHARJA QUARTERS, MUTTATHODY VILLAGE, VIDYANAGAR P.O. KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS. THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 367 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 O R D E R In this revision petition the petitioner assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. respectively to his wife and a daughter aged 14 years and at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to two minor sons, aged 12 years and 8 years respectively. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are not disputed. That the petitioner was employed abroad is also not disputed. That the petitioner, during the currency of the marriage with the first petitioner, has married again is also admitted. What then is the contention? 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the wife was living in adultery. The court below took the view that the said plea has not been specifically raised. At any rate, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the wife was living in adultery. Except the evidence of the petitioner as RW1, no other evidence was adduced by the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No. 367 of 2007 2 4. The only other contention raised before me is that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. An idea about the degree of affluence enjoyed by the petitioner can be gathered from the fact that he, with open eyes with the existing liability to pay maintenance to the wife and his children, has sought the luxury of marrying again. It is also accepted that he was employed abroad and the employment was such that he was able to take the first claimant to his place of employment abroad. 5. 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 merit in the contention that the quantum of maintenance fixed is excessive as to warrant interference. Crl.M.C.No. 367 of 2007 3 6. A contention is raised that the petitioner has returned and is now employed as a driver at his native place. No materials whatsoever was available. It is up to the petitioner, if that contention is true, to seek appropriate modification of the quantum under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 7. This revision petition is dismissed. Needless to say, any amount in deposit shall forthwith be released to the claimants. (R. BASANT) Judge tm