IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 44 of 2008() --------------------- MC.289/2002 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- A.C.VELAYUDHAN, PENSIONER, S/O ANGOTTAYIL CHATHAPPAN, KIZHOOR VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. K.K.SARADA, TEACHER, AL-AMEEN ENGLISH MEDIUM PUBLIC SCHOOL, D/O KOTTAMMAL KUTTICHATHU, POST KARIKKAD. 2. PRAVEEN, S/O K.K.SARADA, POST KARIKKAD- 680519. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.44 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C enhancing the maintenance awarded to the respondents from Rs.250/- each per mensum fixed in 1993 to Rs.600/- and Rs.500/- respectively in 2002. The order passed in so far as it relates to the second respondent is not challenged before me, he having already attained majority and the liability of the petitioner to pay maintenance to the second respondent/child having come to an end by now. Marriage was admitted. Separate residence was admitted. In the earlier proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, it was found that the wife was having income by way of tuition. It was also found that the petitioner was living with another woman since 1993. The petitioner had retired from service. He had received his terminal benefits. There is some evidence to show that he had properties which he had disposed of. The suggestion that such properties would fetch an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per cent was denied by the petitioner. The R.P.F.C.No.44/08 2 learned Judge of the Family Court, after considering all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimant/wife is entitled for enhancement of maintenance to Rs.600/- per mensum. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of enhancement ordered to the claimant/wife is totally unjustified. He contends that there has been a reduction in his income and that he has retired from employment and is now getting only a pension. He raised a further contention that the wife is employed as a teacher in a school. The wife denied this assertion. To disprove that assertion of the wife, he had, after the commencement of proceedings, issued a registered letter to her in the school address which was returned unclaimed as per Ext.B1. He relied on the said evidence in support of his contention that she is employed. The learned Judge of the Family Court found that there was paucity of evidence to come to the conclusion that the wife is employed and is having income of her own. R.P.F.C.No.44/08 3 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? First of all, it is contended that there is nothing to show that the petitioner is getting any sufficient income now as to spare an amount of Rs.600/- for the claimant/wife now. In this context, we have the admitted statement that he gets pension. The petitioner has produced before the learned Magistrate pension certificate dated 7/6/2007 (Ext.B3) which showed that he was getting an amount of Rs.2,736/- as monthly pension. It is further shown that he has received terminal benefits exceeding Rs.1,68,000/- when he retired on superannuation. There are indications to suggest that there were some properties and he had disposed of them also. In any view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the direction to pay an amount of Rs.600/- to his wife by the petitioner, who admittedly has a monthly income of Rs.2,736/- as pension is justified and the same does not warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. The contention now has to be considered that the claimant/wife has income. She denied such allegation when she R.P.F.C.No.44/08 4 was examined as PW1. Ext.B1 was pressed into service to show that she has such employment. According to me, Ext.B1 is too meager an indication to jump to the conclusion that the claimant wife/PW1 has any stable income in the said school or that she is employed there on any regular basis. If that assertion were true, it should have been very easy for the petitioner to summon the authorities of the said school to establish his contention that she was having any such employment. The petitioner was satisfied by pressing into service Ext.B1 and I am of the opinion that the court below committed no error in not jumping to any conclusion on the basis of Ext.B1 in the wake of the failure on the part of the petitioner to adduce better evidence about the employment, if any, of PW1 by examining the school authorities. It may not be inapposite in this context straight away to observe that admittedly in Ext.A1 order, the court had taken note of the fact that the claimant was having some income by way of tuition. Ext.B1 and the assertion of RW1 that PW1 has a stable employment as a teacher are, according to me, not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the claimant/wife is not entitled for any enhancement. R.P.F.C.No.44/08 5 5. I am in these circumstances satisfied that this revision petition does not deserve admission and the impugned order can be upheld and this revision petition dismissed. Considering the contentions raised in this revision petition, I am certainly satisfied that it is not necessary to admit this revision petition and extend an invitation to the respondent/claimant to appear and contest the proceedings. 6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.44/08 6 R.P.F.C.No.44/08 7 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008