IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 146 of 2007()
1. SAFARULLA, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JUMAILA, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. LINSHAD, 10 YEARS, (MINOR)
3. LIBINAN, 6 YEARS, (MINOR)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :23/10/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-----------------------------------------------
R.P.(FC). No. 146 OF 2007
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner in this RP(FC) challenges an order passed
under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance to his
wife and two children at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,000/-,
Rs.800/- respectively per mensem.
2. Marriage and paternity are admitted. Separate residence
is also conceded. Court below came to the conclusion on the
basis of the oral evidence of the claimant wife as against that of
the petitioner herein as RW1 that, claimants are entitled for
maintenance at the rates specified above. Petitioner claims to be
aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The
short contention raised before me is that the quantum of
maintenance awarded is excessive. The learned Judge appears
to have considered the question of quantum of maintenance in
great deal in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. The averments
in the petition as also the averments in the counter affidavit have
been read over to me. It is not disputed that the petitioner has
business interest in many concerns. He advances that the
R.P.(FC). No. 146 OF 2007
-:2:-
conduct of them now is not as profitable as it need to be and that
some of them happened to be closed on account of loss incurred.
The learned Judge of the Family Court had taken note of the fact
that he was moving around in luxury cars and further took note of
the circumstance that even admittedly for the marriage of the
sisters of his wife, he claimed to have been spent an amount of
Rs.1.5 lakhs. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the evidence is insufficient to correctly locate/identify and
ascertain precisely the monthly income of the petitioner. But no
court can be oblivious to the difficulties and plight of a separated
wife called upon to prove the actual quantity of income earned by
her husband. The totality of the circumstances will have to be
taken into account. I note that the learned Judge of the Family
Court had precisely done that. The course adopted by the learned
Judge cannot be said to be objectionable.
3. 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 revisional jurisdiction of correction and
superintendence. Unless the discretion exercised in fixing the
R.P.(FC). No. 146 OF 2007
-:3:-
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 jurisdiction to interfere either with the
finding regarding liability or regarding the quantum of monthly
maintenance fixed for payment to the wife and children. I do not, in
these circumstances, find any reason to interfere. This R.P.F.C.
is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
R. BASANT, JUDGE
ttb
R.P.(FC). No. 146 OF 2007
-:4:-
R.P.(FC). No. 146 OF 2007
-:5:-