IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 RPFC.No. 8 of 2008() -------------------- MC.23/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- SANKARAN, S/O.KUNHUNNI, AGED 41 YEARS, THAZHEKUNATH HOUSE, PUTHIYAPALAM, PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKODE- 673 004. BY ADV. SMT.T.KAMALA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- CHITHRAKALA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LATE RAMU, PALANGADATH, KALPOOR ROAD, MORKUNDUPADANNA, MOORIYAD, P.O.MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P. (F.C.) No. 8 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against a direction issued by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to his wife, the claimant. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. The wife contended that the husband compelled her to take up separate residence. But she submitted that notwithstanding the prior cruelty, she is willing to go with the husband if he is willing to take her. But the petitioner/husband took the stand that he will not take the wife along with him. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for separate maintenance. Considering the totality of circumstances, the quantum of maintenance payable was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month. R.P.F.C.No.8/08 : 2 : 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge, which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction to pay maintenance is not legally sustainable. I find absolutely no merit in the prayer. Though the wife asserts that the husband was cruel to her, she offered to go with him and resume cohabitation. But the petitioner was not ready to resume cohabitation. He did not make an offer to maintain her. In these circumstances, the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay separate maintenance cannot be faulted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the quantum of monthly maintenance may be reduced. The contention of the petitioner that he was getting only an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month and that he has employed as a room boy was rightly rejected by the learned Judge. Even going by his version, he gets the amount of Rs.1,000/- for R.P.F.C.No.8/08 : 3 : working for 15 days in a month. The court below did not accept the version of the claimant in full but came to the conclusion that at any rate on the basis of the materials available, direction to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was justifiable. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction which I am called upon to exercise. It is the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction which is sought to be invoked. Due allowance must be given to the advantage which the trial court has in the matter of appreciation of data and inferences drawn on perceptions made by it. Unless the discretions exercised are found to be grossly erroneous, illogical and irrational, such revisional jurisdiction of correction and superintendence cannot and should not be invoked. Having considered the impugned order and having heard the learned counsel, I find absolutely no reason, in the facts and circumstances of this case, which can justify the invocation of R.P.F.C.No.8/08 : 4 : the revisional jurisdiction. The quantum fixed does not at any rate warrant interference by invoking such jurisdiction. I am of the opinion that the conclusion of the court below is cogent and reasonable. The conclusion about the quantum payable is consistent with the materials available about the needs of the claimant and the means of the petitioner. I am satisfied that the quantum does not want interference. 5. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order is upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks