IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 27 of 2008() --------------------- MC.741/2006 of THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ PALLIKKATHODI UMMER, S/O. LATE KUNHUNNEEN, AGED 41 YEARS, PALLIKKATHODI HOUSE, KOORAD P.O.,VANIYAMBALAM(VIA) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------ CHERUKAPALLY RAFEEKA, W/O. PALLIKKATHODI UMMER, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUKAPALLY HOUSE, VANIYAMBALAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 27 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against a direction issued under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. by the Family Court to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem to the claimant – admittedly his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence of the spouses is also admitted. That no children were born in the marital tie between the petitioner and the claimant is also admitted. That the petitioner's brother expired and the petitioner later married the widow of his brother, who has three children in that wed-lock, is also admitted. The petitioner is employed abroad for the last about two decades. That is also admitted. That he has landed properties is also not disputed and the impugned order shows that those properties R.P.(FC) No. 27 OF 2008 -: 2 :- were attached in an original petition which was also disposed of along with the claim under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. by a common order. 3. Before the learned Judge of the Family Court the claimant/wife and two witnesses tendered evidence as P.Ws.1 to 3. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on their side. On the side of the petitioner herein, his mother was examined as R.W.1 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. It is after considering the entire materials that the learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the quantum of monthly maintenance fixed is grossly excessive and perverse. No other contentions are raised. 5. The short question is whether the quantum fixed is fair, reasonable and just or whether it is arbitrary, perverse and excessive. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality R.P.(FC) No. 27 OF 2008 -: 3 :- and contours of the jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke and exercise. The jurisdiction which is sought to be invoked is the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. A court of revision will not and cannot lightly invoke its revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the discretions exercised by the subordinate courts. Unless such exercise of jurisdiction are shown to be grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage of justice, the revisional jurisdiction shall not be invoked. 6. Having considered all the relevant inputs available in this case, I have no hesitation to agree that the impugned order fixing the quantum of maintenance as Rs.3,000/- per mensem payable to the claimant – wife, does not suffer from any vice which warrants revisional interference. All the relevant inputs point to the correctness and justifiability of the quantum fixed. The petitioner has not chosen to reveal to the Family Court his monthly income. He is employed abroad and has been continuing as such for the past more than two decades. He has voluntarily embraced the subsequent liability to maintain another woman with three children though such woman happens R.P.(FC) No. 27 OF 2008 -: 4 :- to be the widow of his brother. The petitioner has landed property also. We have only the interested version of the wife about his monthly income. The totality of inputs when taken into consideration it is evident that the quantum fixed by the court below does not, at any rate, warrant interference. 7. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge