IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 36 of 2004() --------------------- MC.53/2003 of the Family Court, Manjeri .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. ------------------------------------------------ MELAKATH MUHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 37, S/O.MUHAMMED CHERKARATH HOUSE, KUMMINIPARAMBU, PALLIKKAL, THIROORANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS. ------------------------- 1. SAKEENA VARIKKOTTIL, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.KUNHEEN, SCHOOLPURAYA HOUSE, CHIRAYIL P.O. VIA KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED SUFIYAN, AGED 8 YEARS, S/O.MELAKATH, MUHAMMED BASHEER, MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER/GUARDIAN THE IST RESPONDENT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.36 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May 2008 O R D E R In this revision petition, the petitioner assails an order passed under Section 127 Cr.P.C by the Family Court enhancing the amount of maintenance ordered to be paid to the claimants - admittedly his wife and daughter. 2. In M.C.No.739/1999, the petitioner was directed under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- and Rs.250/- respectively to his wife and child. Four years later claimants came to the Family Court with the present application under Section 127 Cr.P.C claiming enhancement of maintenance. The increase in expenditure particularly that of the second petitioner/child who had started to attend school, the inflationary tendencies in the economy, increase in the prices of commodities, elapse of a period of about four years were all pressed into service as grounds justifying the claim for enhancement of maintenance. It was further noted that the petitioner had, during the currency of the marriage with the first claimant, contracted another marriage and begotten children in such relationship. It was prayed that the maintenance amount may be enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per mensum for both claimants. R.P.F.C.No.36/04 2 3. The petitioner entered appearance and resisted the claim for enhancement of maintenance. It was contended that the petitioner has no increase in income. He has no permanent or fixed employment or income. He was constrained to marry again because the first claimant had refused to live with him. He has the added responsibility of maintaining his second wife and children. In these circumstances, it is prayed that maintenance awarded may not be enhanced. 4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The first claimant examined herself as PW1. The petitioner herein examined himself as RW1. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of maintenance to Rs.600/- each per mensum. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 5. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The only grievance urged is that the enhancement of maintenance should not have been granted and at any rate, the rate of enhancement awarded is excessive. It is true that the claimants did not adduce any specific evidence to show the increase in the income of the R.P.F.C.No.36/04 3 petitioner. But that cannot by itself be held to be very crucial. The plight of a separated wife and her difficulty to prove the means of her husband after such separation must realistically be taken note of. She asserted that the petitioner was running a grocery shop earlier when she was living with him and that now he has expanded his business. Better evidence in support of that assertion is not made available. 6. Even in the absence of any such specific evidence, I am satisfied that the learned Judge of the Family Court had taken into account the realities of the situation. The passage of time, inflationary tendencies in the economy, the inevitable increase in income, the indisputable increase in prices of commodities, the increased needs of the growing child must all be realistically taken into account by any court in such a situation. The fact that a second marriage was contended must give the court an idea of the petitioner's own assessment of his financial position and capability. When those circumstances are taken into account, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the direction to pay enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per mensum is in anyway perverse or excessive as to justify revisional interference. 7. This revision petition in these circumstances fails and hence dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.36/04 4 R.P.F.C.No.36/04 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008