IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 273 of 2008()
1. BABU, AGED 24, S/O.RAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KAMALA, 21 YEARS, D/O.BODY CHETTIYAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :22/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
R.P.F.C.No.273 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner in this R.P.F.C assails an order passed under
Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance to his wife
at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensum .
2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence is admitted.
The petitioner is not willing to maintain the wife on condition
that she lives with him. He instead staked a claim for divorce on
the assertion that she is insane. The petition for divorce stands
dismissed.
3. In any view of the matter, the liability to pay
maintenance cannot be accepted at all. As stated earlier,
marriage and separate residence are admitted and there is no
offer to main the wife on condition that she lives with him. In fact
the specific assertion is that the petitioner is not willing to live
with his wife. What remains is only the quantum. An amount of
Rs.1,500/- has been awarded. The petitioner is not shown to
have any specific or stable employment. It is said that he is a
coolie. The wife asserted that he gets an income of Rs.250/- per
day. According to him, he gets an income of Rs.150/- per day.
There is also dispute as to the number of days on which he can
R.P.F.C.No.273/08 2
secure employment. The court took note of the fact on broad
probabilities and came to the reasonable conclusion that the
petitioner must be getting an amount of about Rs.4,000/- per
mensum as monthly income from his employment. The court
directed that he should share an amount of Rs.1,500/- to his wife.
The crux of the contention is that the quantum of maintenance
awarded is excessive.
4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and
contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and
correction. Unless findings of fact recorded and discretions
exercised by subordinate criminal courts are so grossly
erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to failure or
miscarriage of justice, such correctional and supervisory
jurisdiction shall not be lightly invoked by courts of revision. I
am not satisfied that the quantum fixed by the court below –
going by the evidence available about the means of the petitioner
and the needs of the claimant, suffers from any vice which would
justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction.
5. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
R.P.F.C.No.273/08 3
R.P.F.C.No.273/08 4
R.BASANT, J
R.P.F.C.No.
ORDER
11/02/2008