IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 RPFC.No. 382 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.468/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- RAVI, S/O.KUNJUNNI MENON, VALLIKKODE, THAZHATHETHIL VEEDU, OTHALLUR P.O., THRITHALA VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. GEETHA, D/O.KAPPATTIL KUTTAN, OTHALUR DESOM, ANGADI AMSOM, OTHALLUR P.O., THRITHALA VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN - 679 534. 2. LIPIN RUPE, S/O.GEETHA (MINOR) OTHALUR DESOM, ANGADI AMSOM, OTHALLUR P.O., THRITHALA VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN - 679 534. (REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.382 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 ORDER Petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 127 Cr.P.C granting enhancement of maintenance awarded to an illegitimate child of the petitioner. 2. The claim was initially staked in 1998. That case was disposed of long later in 2005. As per the law that was available in 1998, a maximum amount of Rs.500/- alone was claimed and was ultimately awarded in favour of the petitioner. That claim was lodged at a time when the child was only 2 months old. About a decade later, an application was filed claiming enhancement of maintenance. Enhancement was claimed @ Rs.3,000/- per mensem. 3. The application was opposed. The claim was dubbed as excessive. The petitioner is without any means, it was contended. He has a wife and 2 children in his wedlock depending upon him for maintenance, it was further urged. 4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The interested version of the mother of the child and the petitioner R.P.F.C. No.382 of 2008 2 were available. There was a contention that the petitioner was running an industry, but no tangible and satisfactory evidence was produced in support of such plea. 5. The petitioner/husband admitted that he was earlier running an industry. He further admitted that he had gone abroad after closing that industry. 6. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, took the view that the enhancement of the maintenance was absolutely justified. 7. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The short contention raised is that the enhancement awarded is excessive and grossly and perversely disproportionate to the means of the petitioner. 8. The maintenance was awarded on the basis of a petition filed in 1998 at which point of time Rs.500/- was the maximum amount that can be claimed under law. That petition was disposed of long later. The claim for enhancement was made in 2007. That petition is disposed of in 2008 by the impugned order. 9. The child was aged 2 months at the time when the earlier claim was staked. Now the child is a school going child and is aged about 10 years. Though there is no tangible R.P.F.C. No.382 of 2008 3 materials to prove the income of the petitioner, one cannot lose sight of the fact that he was admittedly running an industry earlier. The fact is admitted that he was subsequently employed abroad. Though PW1 contended that the petitioner is still running the industry, no specific evidence was produced in support of the same. The learned Judge, in these circumstances, reckoned the petitioner as an able bodied person and held that the quantum of maintenance deserves to be enhanced. 10. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The award of enhanced maintenance cannot possibly be challenged. 10 years have elapsed. The needs of the child must have grown. The inevitable inflation and increase in wages must certainly have led to enhancement of the income of the petitioner herein also. The revisional powers of superintendence and correction cannot be lightly invoked to interfere with the findings of fact and discretions exercised by the subordinate courts. Unless such findings of fact and discretions exercised are grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, revisional powers cannot be invoked to interfere with such discretions exercised. R.P.F.C. No.382 of 2008 4 11. Even if it is reckoned that the petitioner is just an able bodied person, the quantum of maintenance awarded, ie. Rs.1,500/- per mensem to an illegitimate child cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be held to be erroneous or perverse as to justify invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 12. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-