IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 27 of 2008()
1. PALLIKKATHODI UMMER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHERUKAPALLY RAFEEKA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/02/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
R.P.(FC) No. 27 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against a direction
issued under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. by the Family Court to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem to the
claimant – admittedly his wife.
2. Marriage is admitted. Separate residence of the
spouses is also admitted. That no children were born in the
marital tie between the petitioner and the claimant is also
admitted. That the petitioner’s brother expired and the
petitioner later married the widow of his brother, who has
three children in that wed-lock, is also admitted. The
petitioner is employed abroad for the last about two decades.
That is also admitted. That he has landed properties is also not
disputed and the impugned order shows that those properties
R.P.(FC) No. 27 OF 2008 -: 2 :-
were attached in an original petition which was also disposed of
along with the claim under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. by a common
order.
3. Before the learned Judge of the Family Court the
claimant/wife and two witnesses tendered evidence as P.Ws.1
to 3. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on their side. On the side of
the petitioner herein, his mother was examined as R.W.1 and
Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. It is after considering the entire
materials that the learned Judge of the Family Court came to the
conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of
Rs.3,000/- per mensem.
4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
order. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which
the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned order, the
learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the quantum
of monthly maintenance fixed is grossly excessive and perverse.
No other contentions are raised.
5. The short question is whether the quantum fixed is fair,
reasonable and just or whether it is arbitrary, perverse and
excessive. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality
R.P.(FC) No. 27 OF 2008 -: 3 :-
and contours of the jurisdiction which I am called upon to invoke
and exercise. The jurisdiction which is sought to be invoked is
the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. A
court of revision will not and cannot lightly invoke its revisional
jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with
the discretions exercised by the subordinate courts. Unless such
exercise of jurisdiction are shown to be grossly erroneous or
perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage of justice,
the revisional jurisdiction shall not be invoked.
6. Having considered all the relevant inputs available in
this case, I have no hesitation to agree that the impugned order
fixing the quantum of maintenance as Rs.3,000/- per mensem
payable to the claimant – wife, does not suffer from any vice
which warrants revisional interference. All the relevant inputs
point to the correctness and justifiability of the quantum fixed.
The petitioner has not chosen to reveal to the Family Court his
monthly income. He is employed abroad and has been
continuing as such for the past more than two decades. He has
voluntarily embraced the subsequent liability to maintain
another woman with three children though such woman happens
R.P.(FC) No. 27 OF 2008 -: 4 :-
to be the widow of his brother. The petitioner has landed
property also. We have only the interested version of the wife
about his monthly income. The totality of inputs when taken
into consideration it is evident that the quantum fixed by the
court below does not, at any rate, warrant interference.
7. This revision petition is, in these circumstances,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge