consideration of the objections. May be it is an erroneous order, but we must at the same time, remind ourselves the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is not an appellate Court to re-appreciate the order. Secondly, we must be mindful of the fact that the daughters are 19 years of age and direction to pay Rs.1,500/- each with the present value of money may not be said to be an unfair order. Admittedly the petitioner is running a bakery and that apart as the pension, he is getting Rs.2,500/- per month. Of course, the wife was directed to be paid maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month. We have to take a realistic view and also consider the limited jurisdiction that we exercise under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It may be true that the wife is getting maintenance of Rs.500/- in M.C. We do not think that in the current scenario, the amount ordered to be paid can be found to be illegal and so as to warrant interference. Accordingly we decline the jurisdiction. However, we direct the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to make every attempt to dispose of O.P. itself at the earliest. We also direct that when the
