IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 222 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.182/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... : PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- KUNJIMOIDEEN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY, ANIKKADAN HOUSE, MANALAYA, ANAMANGADE P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- 1. KADEEJA, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, ALIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.THAZHEKKODE WEST, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. NOUFAL, AGED 16 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.KADEEJA, ALIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.THAZHEKKODE WEST, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, (REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER KADEEJA, IST RESPONDENT, RESIDING AT ALIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.THAZHEKKODE WEST, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK). 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K FOR R.1,2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.222 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this R.P.F.C challenges an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay maintenance to his wife, the first claimant at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensum and to his son, the second claimant an amount of Rs.4,000/- as maintenance for the period of two months for which he remained a minor after the filing of the petition. 2. Marriage is admitted. Admittedly, it was the second marriage of the petitioner with the first claimant. He already had a wife and children. Paternity is also admitted. Separate residence is also conceded. The petitioner raised a contention that the first claimant/wife had already divorced by him by pronouncement of talaq. Significantly no evidence whatsoever was adduced in support of that assertion. Maintenance was claimed at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensum each by the claimants. The petitioner was admittedly employed abroad for a long period of time. He contended that he does not have sufficient means and that he is not hence in a position to pay the amounts claimed to the claimants. R.P.F.C.No.222/07 2 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The first claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. The petitioner examined himself as RW1. No documentary evidence was adduced except Ext.D1. It was a document to produce the date of birth of the second claimant. The learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that the second claimant is entitled for maintenance only for two months by which date he was found to have attained majority under Ext.D1. He was awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2,000/- per mensum for two months); but so far as the first claimant/wife was concerned, maintenance was ordered at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensum . 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? He contends that the amount of maintenance awarded is excessive. He does, of course, raise a contention that there was a valid talaq. But significantly not a semblance of material is produced to substantiate the plea of divorce. It is now trite that the plea of divorce taken in the pleadings is not by itself sufficient to terminate the matrimony. Such plea of anterior divorce has to be substantiated. The plea does not any more constitute a valid divorce with effect from the date of the plea. R.P.F.C.No.222/07 3 5. The only contention that survives for consideration is the contention regarding the quantum of maintenance awarded. The court below has rightly adverted to the fact that there is evidence on the side of the claimant to show that the petitioner has sufficient means. There was material to show that he was employed abroad for a long period of time. There was the further circumstance, circumstantial in nature to show that the petitioner enjoys sound financial position. He was having one wife and children. Fully conscious of his responsibility in such marriage, he had contracted a subsequent marriage and had begotten one child in that marriage. That was also reckoned by the learned Judge as an indication of the relevant affluence of the petitioner. That circumstance was also used for appreciation of the interested testimony of PW1 and RW1. 6. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and exercise. The revisional jurisdiction is one of superintendence and correction. Unless the findings of fact and the exercise of discretion is found to be grossly erroneous and such vice in turn is found to result failure or miscarriage of justice such R.P.F.C.No.222/07 4 correctional jurisdiction shall not be lightly invoked. Having rendered my very anxious consideration to all the relevant circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree that any interference warranted against the quantum of maintenance awarded in this case. The challenge does in these circumstances fail. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner subsequent to the impugned order has filed a petition claiming maintenance from his adult major children. Law will take its course and appropriate orders will be passed in such petition. The mere fact that such a petition was later filed does not at all persuade me to interfere with the impugned order. 8. In the result, a) This R.P.F.C is dismissed. b) The impugned order is upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.222/07 5 R.P.F.C.No.222/07 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008