IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 162 of 2006() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/06/2006 IN & MC 329/2001 IN MC.12/2003 of THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT IN MC. 329/2001 ----------------------------------- ELIYAS, S/O. VARKEY, AYYAMPILLY HOUSE, PAINADATH, PEECHANIKKADU KARA, KOTHAKULANGARA SOUTH VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN M.C. NO.329/01 ------------------------ 1. ANEES, D/O. MATHAI, KAKKOORAN HOUSE, VENGOOR EAST VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK. 2. SARAMMA, D/O.ANEES (MINOR) KAKKOORAN HOUSE, VENGOOR EAST VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.K.K.BABU THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, ALONG WITH RPFC NO. 164 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO.7566/2006 IN RPFC. NO.162/2006 DISMISSED 05/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NOs. 162 & 164 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T These revision petitions are preferred against the orders of the judgment of the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.12/03 and M.C.329/01. The wife and children who were granted an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.175/- and Rs.225/- had claimed enhancement on account of the change of circumstances as contemplated u/s 127 of Cr.P.C.. On the other hand the husband would contend that the girl has attained majority and therefore he is not bound to maintain her. Both these questions had been considered by the court below. Admittedly the daughter has attained majority now but she is under going studies for nursing at Hyderabad and she remains unmarried and she has no independent source of income. When such is the situation it has to be held that such girls are entitled to get maintenance till they get married. This position has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.P.(F.C.) NOs. 162 & 164 OF 2006 -:2:- AIR 1997 S.C. 3280 (Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. Admittedly the girl is studying and she is dependent and unmarried one and therefore she is entitled to continue to get maintenance. Therefore the contention of the husband that the maintenance order in her favour has to be cancelled is only to be negatived and it has been rightly done so by the Family Court. 2. The next question to be considered is regarding the enhancement. The wife and daughter would contend that the maintenance amount has been fixed as early as in the year 1996 and only a meager amount of Rs.175 and Rs.225 were granted and by change of time and circumstances their need has grown larger and the income of the husband has also gone higher and therefore requested the indulgence of the Court to grant a higher order of maintenance. The husband would contend that he is suffering from ailment on account of the lung disease and therefore he is not able to do much work. He had also produced one medical certificate Ext.B2 and examined the R.P.(F.C.) NOs. 162 & 164 OF 2006 -:3:- Doctor as RW2. The learned Family Court judge after considering the evidence found that husband is capable of doing rubber tapping and tailoring as they require less stress and strain. So one cannot hold that he is totally disabled. Then the Family Court Judge mentions about the assignment deed executed by the father of the husband in favour of one Lilly as per Ext.A1. According to the wife and daughter this Lilly is the person who is living with the husband and in order to defeat the claim of maintenance in their favour the document is executed in favour of Lilly. In the document executed in favour of Lilly there is a specific recital reserving life interest in favour of the husband which indicates that there is some connection between the two. It has also come out in evidence from that about 12 sheets of rubber and coconuts are being received. The husband would contend that he has to look after his mother but it is seen that the mother is having an independent extent of 68 cents of land in her name with a house therein. So these aspects has been taken note of by the Family Court Judge. The Court fixed the income at Rs.7,500/- and gave a maintenance of Rs.20/- R.P.(F.C.) NOs. 162 & 164 OF 2006 -:4:- per day for the wife and being a student directed the daughter to be paid Rs.1,000/-, i.e. Rs.600 for the wife and Rs.1,000/- for the child. By any stretch of imagination this cannot be held to be on the higher side and the Court below had not approached the subject matter incorrectly or perversely and there has not been misappreciation of evidence or materials and therefore there are no grounds existing for this Court to interfere with the revisional jurisdiction with the well considered order of the learned Family Court Judge. Therefore the revisions lack merit and both the revisions are dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-