IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 352 of 1997(D) ------------------------------ AGAINST ORDER DTD 21.12.1996 OF FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM IN MC.125/1996 of .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------- 1. RENJINI D/O. K.G. PHILIP AGED 34, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PERUMTHURUTHY, THIRUVALLA. 2. SHERENE ANU MATHEW D/O. SHERRY MATHEW, AGED 9 MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST REVISION PETITIONER RENJINI. BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- SHERRY MATHEW S/O. MATHEW PHILIP, AGED 39, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, 34/749A, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI – 24. ADV. MR.ABRAHAM P GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 352 OF 1997 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 21.12.1996 in M.C.No.125/1996 of the Family Court, Ernakulam. Petitioners, wife and daughter claimed maintenance from respondent. Respondent was served on the application but he did not appear in person. But counsel took notice on his behalf. When the case came up for hearing on 21.12.1996, as per the order under challenge, a representation was made on behalf of petitioner No.1 who was not present in court that she is employed as a teacher outside Kerala and hence could not appear in the court in person. Learned Judge of the Family Court observed that if petitioner No.1 is employed she is not entitled to get maintenance. Counsel for respondent did not object to maintenance being allowed to petitioner No.2 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. Accordingly petition to the extent it concerned petitioner No.1 was dismissed. Maintenance was allowed to petitioner No.2 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. In Crl.R.P.No.352/1997 2 this revision challenge is to the order refusing maintenance to petitioner No.1 and allowing maintenance to petitioner No.2 only at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. So far as maintenance awarded to petitioner No.2 is concerned, she was aged 9 years at the time of application. Learned counsel therefore contends that maintenance awarded to petitioner No.2 is meager. 2. Going by the age of petitioner No.2 given in the petition, she must have now attained majority. It is pertinent to note that at no time after the impugned order, there was any request on the part of the petitioner No.2 for enhancement of maintenance though, Section 127 of the Code enabled petitioner No.2 to seek such enhancement. Therefore, I do not consider it necessary after 13 years to interfere with the amount of maintenance allowed in favour of petitioner No.2 or send back the case for fresh consideration on that aspect. 3. So far as claim of petitioner No.1 is concerned, learned Judge has proceeded on the basis that she is employed as a teacher and therefore is not entitled to get maintenance. Petitioner No.1 has filed an affidavit dated 3.7.1997 in this court swearing that she is without any employment and is living at the expense of her brother who is employed abroad. Learned counsel submits that petitioner No.1 was not present Crl.R.P.No.352/1997 3 in court at the time of hearing and somehow a mistake happened to occur in reporting that petitioner No.1 is employed as a teacher. Assuming that she was employed as teacher, still court below had to consider whether she had sufficient means to maintain herself. That aspect also has not been looked into by the court below. Therefore I am inclined to set aside the order to the extent it concerned petitioner No.1. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the extent it concerned petitioner No.1. The case to the extent it concerned petitioner No.1 is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal after giving respondent an opportunity to file objection if any and after recording the evidence of parties. They shall appear in the court below on 18.7.2009. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.352/1997 4