IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 183 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.498/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 29 YRS, S/O. KAMBRAN KUNHEETHU HAJI, K.K.HOUSE, P.O.KUTTUR NORTH, A.R.NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. NADIYA, D/O. ALOYI ERAMBATHIL, AGED 22 YEARS, KAKKULATHINGAL HOUSE, PUKAYUR, OLAKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. FATHIMA SHERIN, AGED 2 YEARS (MINOR), (MINOR PETITIONER IS REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER.) BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.F.C. No. 183 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 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.2,000/- each to his wife aged 22 years and child aged 1½ years. The child is admittedly sick. She has serious heart ailments. Expenses have admittedly got to be incurred for the treatment of the child. 2. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The wife contended that the husband is employed in Karnataka(Sidhapur) and she has been deserted. The husband took up a plea that the wife is living in adultery. He made no offer to maintain her on condition that she resumes cohabitation. 3. On the plea of adultery, we have the evidence of the claimant wife denying the same and the petitioner R.P.F.C.No.183/07 : 2 : husband asserting the same. Significantly no other witness was examined to prove the alleged theory of adultery. The petitioner as RW1 claimed that he has witnessed the adulterous conduct of his wife. Significantly that plea was not raised in the counter statement. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no material to accept the plea of adultery. A detailed discussion is of course not there in the impugned order. The fact remains that except the evidence of the petitioner, no other evidence or circumstances has been pressed into service in support of the plea of adultery. Less said about the plea of adultery, the better. 4. The only other bone of contention is the quantum of maintenance that is directed to be paid. The wife asserted that the husband runs a wholesale business in vessels/utensils in Sidhapur. He, in turn, contended that he is only a salesman in a furniture shop. That plea was not specifically raised in the counter statement. In the cross- R.P.F.C.No.183/07 : 3 : examination he stated that he does not know the name of his employer. The learned Judge, in these circumstances, accepted the version of the claimant wife. The learned judge also took note of the ailment of the child and the need of medical treatment. It was, in these circumstances, the direction was issued to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. Unsubstantiated allegations of adultery raised against the wife must also give the court an idea about the credibility of the husband. 5. I must alertly remind myself of the nature and quality of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of revision to exercise the jurisdiction of correction and superintendence. Unless the discretion exercised in fixing the quantum is found to be grossly erroneous and perverse, this Court shall not invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for invocation of the revisional R.P.F.C.No.183/07 : 4 : jurisdiction to interfere either with the finding regarding liability or regarding the quantum of monthly maintenance fixed for payment to the wife and child. 6. In the result, this RPFC fails and is hereby dismissed. The amounts, if any, in deposit as per the orders of this Court shall forthwith be released to the claimants. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks