IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 RPFC.No. 3 of 2009() -------------------- MC.220/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- JAYAKUMAR T.N., S/O.NADESAN, THARAYIL VEETTIL, KALAPPURA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND STATE ----------------------------------- 1. BINDUMOL, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.ASHOKAN, MANNAPARAMBIL, WARD NO.5, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 3 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order directing the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the claimant, his wife. The claimant, a woman aged 25 years, contended that the petitioner, her husband, is refusing and neglecting to maintain her. She, who is unable to maintain herself, is entitled to maintenance from her husband, who has sufficient means, it was contended. The petitioner had entered appearance and filed counter statement, but did not thereafter turn up to take part in the proceedings. He was once set ex parte. The same was set aside. Subsequently also he did not adduce any evidence. 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, proceeded to pass the impugned order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance R.P.F.C.No. 3 of 2009 2 fixed at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. The petitioner is admittedly a coconut climber. It is submitted that he had a fall and thereafter he is not able to work as he used to. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Revisional interference shall not lightly be made against discretions exercised by subordinate criminal courts. Unless the discretions exercised are grossly erroneous and perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, such revisional jurisdiction cannot and shall not be invoked. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find absolutely nothing erroneous or perverse in the quantum of maintenance fixed at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. Even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person, the quantum of maintenance awarded cannot be said to be excessive. It follows that this revision petition is without any merit and only deserves to be dismissed. I do so. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is huge amount of arrears and execution proceedings have been initiated. R.P.F.C.No. 3 of 2009 3 She prays that the petitioner may be granted reasonable time to clear of the arrears. It is for the petitioner to show his bonafides before the Family Court by making substantial payment towards the arrears. If the petitioner does so and seeks reasonable time to clear of the entire arrears, needless to say, the learned Judge must consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm