IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 341 of 2008()
1. HAMZA HAJI, AGED 52 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AFSATH, 30 YEARS
... Respondent
2. MUHAMMED NOUFIC (MINOR)
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
R.P.F.C.No.341 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of November 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order
passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance
at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem.
2. Marriage between the mother of the claimant/child and
the petitioner herein is admitted. Birth of the claimant/child
during the currency of such matrimony is also admitted. A
contention was raised disputing paternity of the child.
Absolutely no satisfactory data was even attempted to be
adduced in support of the plea of denial of paternity. The
learned Judge of the Family Court came to the conclusion that
the claimant/child is entitled for maintenance. The learned
Judge of the Family Court took note of the totality of
circumstances. The learned Judge took note of the fact that the
petitioner was employed abroad for some period of time and that
he has landed property where agriculture is conducted. 175
rubber trees were admittedly available in 1.7 acres of land
planted with rubber. He has a total extent of about 2.5 acres of
R.P.F.C.No.341/08 2
land also, it was conceded. It was in these circumstances that
the court came to the conclusion that the petitioner can safely be
mulcted with the liability to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per
mensum to the claimant/child.
3. No attempt is made before me to assail the conclusion
that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the claimant
who has been found to be his child. Less said about the plea of
dispute of paternity the better. The plea raised shows the cruel
face of the attitude of a father to the child. The learned Judge of
the Family Court definitely appears to have thought that the
injustice in the nature of the defence raised must be adequately
redressed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive.
4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and
contours of the jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke and
exercise. The revisional jurisdiction is one of superintendence
and correction. Even the quest for a better conclusion on facts
cannot persuade this court to lightly invoke the revisional
jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Unless the
findings of fact and the exercise of discretion is vitiated by the
R.P.F.C.No.341/08 3
vice of the gross error and perversity which in turn leads to
miscarriage of justice, such revisional jurisdiction cannot and
shall not be invoked. I am hence convinced that this is not a fit
case to invoke the revisional jurisdiction. In coming to that
conclusion, I take note of the irresponsible defence raised by the
petitioner denying paternity of the child and the injustice caused
to the child. I further take note of the materials available about
the needs of the child and the means of the petitioner.
5. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
R.P.F.C.No.341/08 4
R.P.F.C.No.341/08 5
R.BASANT, J
R.P.F.C.No.
ORDER
11/02/2008