IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 42 of 2005(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/09/2004 IN CMP.864/2003 IN MC.421/2000 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- P.MOOSA, S/O. ALI, PULIKKATHODI HOUSE, KARATT P.O., KUMARANALLUR, KARMOOLA, VIA. MUKKAM, MUKKAM PSL. BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & STATE : ------------------------------------------------ 1. RASIA, D/O. NJARAKKODAN MOIDEEN, KARAD HOUSE, P.P. KUMARANALLUR, KARAMOOLA, VIA. MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. SALMAN, S/O. P.MOOSA, AGED 8 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER & GUARDIAN, 1ST RESPONDENT. 3. JAMSHEER, S/O. P.MOOSA, AGED 5 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER & GUARDIAN, 1ST RESPONDENT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH FOR R1 TO R3 SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BENNY VARGHESE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 42 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in CMP 864/03 in M.C.421/00. The Family Court enhanced maintenance to the children from Rs.200/- to Rs.1,000/- each and it is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The original order was passed on the basis of an endorsement made by the parties, i.e. Rs.400/- to the wife and Rs.200/- each to the children. It was passed on 16.7.2001. Now the present M.C. is filed within a period of 22 months claiming enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/-. It has to be remembered that change of circumstances is certainly a ground for variation of the order of maintenance. The maintenance as per the agreement between the parties was fixed at Rs.200/- just 22 months prior to the filing of the petition. The first child was aged about 5 R.P.(F.C.) NO. 42 OF 2005 -:2:- years and the 2nd child was aged about 2 years at the time of the filing of the application. Now the first child is seven years and the second child is 4 years. The learned Family Court judge without looking into the various aspects had increased the maintenance to Rs.1,000/- each. There were documents evidencing transfer of the property as well as ownership of the property. Exts.A1 to A2(d) would reveal that all those transactions had taken place prior to 16.7.01 ie., prior to the passing of the first order in the M.C. Only there was one transaction which had taken place on 27.7.2001, i.e. immediately after the agreement between the parties. Now the attempt of the Family Court to ignore those transactions in order to defeat the interest of the minors in granting maintenance cannot be said to be correct in the light of the fact those transactions had taken place prior to the agreement between the parties whereby Rs.200/- is agreed to be paid as maintenance to the children. The Family Court should not have enhanced the maintenance so much without reason. Now even if 100% increase is granted per year the maximum R.P.(F.C.) NO. 42 OF 2005 -:3:- entitlement would be 200% when it reaches July 2003. But the application is filed on 27.5.03. Therefore taking into consideration the most liberal view I feel the maximum increase at this stage the Court can order was Rs.400/- and not Rs.1,000/-. Therefore I modify the order of the Family Court and fix the maintenance at Rs.600/- per month and it shall take effect from 24th September, 2004. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-