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. 224 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.720/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED @ KUNJAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUNNI GURUKKAL, GURUKKAL VEEDU, KODUNNODU, KUNDURKUNNU (P.O), MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. FATHIMA, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.HAMZA, THITTUMMAL VEEDU, CHOLODE, CHALODE (P.O), THACHANATTUKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. FATHIMATH HASANATH, AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, D/O.MUHAMMED @ KUNJAN, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER IST RESPONDENT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD FOR R1 & R2 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.224 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 ORDER Petitioner has come to this Court with this revision petition to assail an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the claimants, admittedly his wife and minor child. Marriage is admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. He earlier had a wife who later expired. It is thereafter that he contracted the marriage with the claimant/wife. There are indications to show that the petitioner has remarried. That aspect is not seriously challenged. 2. The only dispute that now survives is about the quantum of maintenance. The petitioner was employed abroad in the Gulf States for a very long period of time. He has returned from his place of employment. The wife asserted that he has huge bank balance and properties. Tangible evidence about the bank balance and properties could not be produced by the wife. However the husband had admitted that he has properties. He owns 2.25 acres planted with rubber. He has 92 cents of land planted with coconut. He has plantain cultivation also. He had taken an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan repayable in 7 years for R.P.F.C. No.224 of 2008 2 such cultivation. Towards that he had already repaid Rs.30,000/- in 2 years, it is further indicated in evidence. The petitioner of course raised a contention with the help of documents produced that he is having ailments. 3. The petitioner aged 50 years is of course shown to have some ailments. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered all the relevant inputs. The court took note of the fact that even if it is true that he has ailments and has suffered an accident, the nature of his income earning activity is not directly connected with his physical health and in these circumstances the learned Judge did not think the alleged ailments or the accident suffered to be crucially significant or relevant. The wife's evidence shows that he used to earn Rs.15,000/- per mensem when she was residing with him. 4. The totality of circumstances placed before court had to be appreciated. The learned Judge of the Family Court, does appear to me, to have adverted to the relevant aspects alertly. The difficulties of a wife living separately to prove the precise quantum of income of the husband must be realistically taken note of by the court. What is required is not ascertainment of the monthly income of the husband correct to the last decimal or R.P.F.C. No.224 of 2008 3 the last one hundred rupees. Over all impressions and presumptions also do count. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the wife and child cannot be said to suffer from any such vice which would warrant the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. I must remind myself of the nature and quality 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, no court of revision should lightly invoke its correctional and supervisory jurisdiction. 6. So construed, I am satisfied that the impugned fixation of the quantum of maintenance by the learned Judge of the Family Court does not suffer from any vice which can persuade me to interfere with the same. 7. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-