IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 202 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.214/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER --------------------------- T.K.ISMAIL, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE KHADER, THALAKKATTIL HOUSE, CHENDAMANGALAM, N.PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- P.A.NADEERA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.ABOOBACKER, PADINJAREVEETTIL, THAIKKATTUKARA, P.O.ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 202 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 O R D E R This Revision Petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- p.m. to the claimant, admittedly his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. This was the second marriage of the petitioner. He had three major children when he contracted his second marriage with the claimant. There is strain in the relationship between the spouses. The children of the petitioner in the earlier marriage are ill-disposed towards the claimant and the matrimonial cruelty inflicted on her by the petitioner herein and his children had allegedly compelled her to take up separate residence. 3. The petitioner denied the allegation that there was any matrimonial cruelty. He contended that he does not have the means to pay the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m claimed by the claimant. R.P.F.C.No. 202 of 2008 2 4. The parties went to trial on these contentions. The respondent examined herself as PW1 and her brother as PW2. The petitioner did not choose to adduce any evidence. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that the claimant wife is entitled for separate maintenance. Accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. 6. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned judgment. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. According to the petitioner he gets only an income of Rs.4,000/- p.m. He is retired from service also. He was employed as a Supervisor in the Cochin Port Trust Hospital. The claimant asserted that he gets an income of Rs.15,000/- There is not even a plea that the petitioner had already retired from service. The petitioner has not entered the witness stand to assert what his income is. In these circumstances the conclusion appears to be inevitable that the learned Judge of the Family Court committed no error warranting revisional R.P.F.C.No. 202 of 2008 3 correction in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- p.m. The said direction does not, at any rate, justify or warrant interference in revision invoking the jurisdiction, which is essentially supervisory and correctional in nature. 7. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm