IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 37 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/09/2008 IN CMP 1108/2008 IN MC.388/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- A.V.JAYAN, S/O.VASU, P.C.NO.4202, A.R.CAMP, KALLEKKADU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. SUJATHA, W/O.A.V.JAYAN, SUJATHA NIVAS, THATTURUMBANKADU, PALAKKAD. 2. AISWARYA, D/O.A.V.JAYAN, AGED 7 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AND MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 37 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner, a police constable, is now mulcted with a liability to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- p.m. to his wife, aged 30 years and minor daughter, aged 7 years. Earlier in 2004 he was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- p.m. respectively to those claimants. They filed application for enhancement of maintenance in 2007 and the petitioner was set ex parte in such proceedings. He had appeared through counsel. He was directed to appear for counselling. He did not do the same. He was asked to file an affidavit to explain why he did not so appear. Thereafter he stopped appearing before the court. The counsel also did not appear. It was in these circumstances that the ex parte order under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was passed enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- respectively. 2. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. The application was opposed. Evidence was R.P.F.C.No. 37 of 2009 2 adduced. The learned Judge of the Family court by the impugned order took the view that sufficient reason has not been shown to explain the absence of the petitioner. Consequently the ex parte order is not liable to be set aside, it was held. 3. The petitioner admittedly earns a totally monthly income exceeding Rs.11,000/- Out of this, he has now been directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- in all to his wife and minor child. No satisfactory explanation is offered as to why the petitioner did not appear for counseling, did not file any affidavit as directed by the court and did not appear thereafter when the court proceeded to dispose of the claim for enhancement. He conveniently urged that the petitioner, a police constable, was on duty elsewhere. The learned Judge considered the same and came to the conclusion that in the total absence of evidence even to show that the petitioner had applied for leave to facilitate his appearance before the Family Court, his contention that he was not likely to get leave cannot be accepted. I find absolutely no vice in the impugned order which calls for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. R.P.F.C.No. 37 of 2009 3 4. The learned counsel, with the help of Annex.7 salary certificate, advances a strenuous contention that the carry home salary of the petitioner is only Rs.4,679/- and that it must hence be noted that the refusal to set aside the order has resulted in miscarriage of justice. I have gone through Annex.7. Inflated recoveries shown (for example, to the GPF Rs.4,000/- is seen remitted every month) cannot certainly justify the lament that he gets a carry home salary of rs.4,679/- only. Statistics and accounts can be manipulated and inflated recoveries can be shown. The petitioner need only contribute the stipulated minimum to the GPF. That would show that his carry home salary would increase. I have adverted to this only to satisfy myself that the impugned order will not result in any injustice. I am not in these circumstances persuaded to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction against the impugned order. 5. This R.P.F.C. is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm R.P.F.C.No. 37 of 2009 4