IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 254 of 2008() ---------------------- M.C.NO.464/07 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT; ---------------------------- BIJU, 34 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, KODAKKANCHERI HOUSE, PERUNTHURUTHI P.O., PAZHANJI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SATHEESA BABU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------ 1. AJITHA, 29 YEARS, D/O.GANGADHARAN, KARAYIL HOUSE, KALLURMA, P.O.NANNAMUKKU, CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC)No. 254 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 ORDER This petition is directed against an order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per mensem to the claimant – his wife. 2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is also admitted. The petitioner is a young man aged about 34 years. He is admittedly a coolie. The wife contended that she is unable to maintain herself and that the petitioner who has sufficient means is refusing and neglecting to maintain her. The husband contended that she is residing separately without any valid reason and that she is bound to return and resume cohabitation with him if he were to pay maintenance to her. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined herself as P.W.1. The petitioner examined R.P.(FC)No. 254 of 2008 -: 2 :- himself as R.W.1. Exts.P1 and P2 – notice and reply, were marked. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court evaluated the interested statements on oath by the claimant/wife and the petitioner/husband and came to the conclusion that between the evidence of the claimant/wife who had a reason to justify her separate residence and the evidence of the husband who had no reason to offer for such separate residence, the evidence of the claimant/wife deserves to be preferred. Accordingly, it was held that the wife is entitled for separate maintenance. 5. Coming to the question of quantum of maintenance, the court took note of the assertions of the petitioner that he gets only an amount of Rs.125/- per day as wages and the assertion of the claimant/wife that he gets an amount of Rs.250/- per day. The learned Judge of Family Court took note of the admitted fact that a construction worker gets Rs.350/- per day as wages. The assertion that the parents and the sister of the petitioner were dependent on him was also taken note of. Taking all the relevant inputs into account, it was held that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,200/- per mensem to the claimant/wife as maintenance. 6. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and R.P.(FC)No. 254 of 2008 -: 3 :- contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction vested in this Court. Such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of course. The discretion exercised by the subordinate courts in the matter of appreciation of evidence and in fixation of quantum of maintenance shall not be lightly interfered with invoking the supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. Unless such discretions are found to be grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage/failure of justice, a court of revision shall be and has to be slow to invoke such correctional jurisdiction. 7. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that the finding of fact that the wife is entitled for separate maintenance or the fixation of the quantum of maintenance at Rs.1,200/- per mensem do, in any way, warrant revisional correction. They do appear to me to be cogent, reasonable and fair. 8. In the result, this RP(FC) is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC)No. 254 of 2008 -: 4 :-