IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 224 of 2008()
1. MUHAMMED @ KUNJAN, AGED 56 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FATHIMA, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.HAMZA,
... Respondent
2. FATHIMATH HASANATH, AGED 5 YEARS,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD
For Respondent :SRI.K.R.VINOD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
R.P.F.C. No.224 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner has come to this Court with this revision petition
to assail an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him
to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem to
the claimants, admittedly his wife and minor child. Marriage is
admitted. Paternity is admitted. Separate residence is also
admitted. He earlier had a wife who later expired. It is
thereafter that he contracted the marriage with the
claimant/wife. There are indications to show that the petitioner
has remarried. That aspect is not seriously challenged.
2. The only dispute that now survives is about the
quantum of maintenance. The petitioner was employed abroad
in the Gulf States for a very long period of time. He has returned
from his place of employment. The wife asserted that he has
huge bank balance and properties. Tangible evidence about the
bank balance and properties could not be produced by the wife.
However the husband had admitted that he has properties. He
owns 2.25 acres planted with rubber. He has 92 cents of land
planted with coconut. He has plantain cultivation also. He had
taken an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan repayable in 7 years for
R.P.F.C. No.224 of 2008 2
such cultivation. Towards that he had already repaid Rs.30,000/-
in 2 years, it is further indicated in evidence. The petitioner of
course raised a contention with the help of documents produced
that he is having ailments.
3. The petitioner aged 50 years is of course shown to
have some ailments. The learned Judge of the Family Court
considered all the relevant inputs. The court took note of the
fact that even if it is true that he has ailments and has suffered
an accident, the nature of his income earning activity is not
directly connected with his physical health and in these
circumstances the learned Judge did not think the alleged
ailments or the accident suffered to be crucially significant or
relevant. The wife’s evidence shows that he used to earn
Rs.15,000/- per mensem when she was residing with him.
4. The totality of circumstances placed before court had
to be appreciated. The learned Judge of the Family Court, does
appear to me, to have adverted to the relevant aspects alertly.
The difficulties of a wife living separately to prove the precise
quantum of income of the husband must be realistically taken
note of by the court. What is required is not ascertainment of
the monthly income of the husband correct to the last decimal or
R.P.F.C. No.224 of 2008 3
the last one hundred rupees. Over all impressions and
presumptions also do count. In the facts and circumstances of
this case, I am satisfied that the direction to pay an amount of
Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem to the wife and child
cannot be said to suffer from any such vice which would warrant
the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence
and correction.
5. I must remind myself of the nature and quality of the
revisional jurisdiction. Unless findings of fact entered and the
discretion exercised by the subordinate criminal court are
grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to
miscarriage, no court of revision should lightly invoke its
correctional and supervisory jurisdiction.
6. So construed, I am satisfied that the impugned
fixation of the quantum of maintenance by the learned Judge of
the Family Court does not suffer from any vice which can
persuade me to interfere with the same.
7. This R.P.F.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-