IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.NO. 58 OF 2009() --------------------- MC.308/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITONER - RESPONDENT: ------ ----------------------------- NOORUDHEEN, S/O.ALI MUHAMMED, AGED 45 CHEMBALLANTE PURAKKAL HOUSE , VAKKAD, P.O.PARAVANNA VIA, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S) - PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------- 1. AYISHA BEEVI, D/O.SAITHALIKKUTTY CHAKKACHINTE PURACKAL, P.O.PUTHIYAKADAPPURAM, TANALUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SADDAM HUSSAIN, 12 YEARS, (MINOR) 3. NUSRATH, 9 YEARS, (MINOR) (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTER IST PETITIONER) ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) . NO.58 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Respondents are the wife and children of petitioner. Accepting their contention that in spite of having sufficient means petitioner neglected and refused to maintain them and that they have no means to sustain themselves, court below ordered maintenance to them at the rate of Rs.350/-, Rs.300/- and Rs.250/-, respectively, per month as per order in M.C. No.168 of 2000. After eight years respondents filed M.C. No.308 of 2008 requesting that maintenance allowance awarded to them may be enhanced. That petition was resisted by petitioner contending that he is unable to pay enhanced maintenance. Court below recorded evidence of parties and allowed the petition enhancing maintenance payable by petitioner to Rs.700/-, Rs.600/- and Rs.500/-, respectively, per month. That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that respondent No.1 is capable of maintaining herself since she owns 21 cents of land. The further contention is that petitioner is undergoing treatment in various hospitals and is unable to pay the enhanced maintenance. Learned counsel for respondents contested the claim of petitioner and stated that no document was produced by petitioner in the court R.P(FC) No.58 of 2009 -: 2 :- below to substantiate his contention. 2. Petitioner has produced the photocopy of a release deed dated 11.6.1991 in favour of respondent No.1 and photocopies of a few medical bills. Those medial bills are to the effect that in the year 2004 petitioner has undergone treatment in Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode. There is no evidence of any subsequent or continued treatment to presume that now the petitioner is unable to earn. The medical bills are not produced in the court below. 3. So far as release deed dated 11.6.1991 is concerned, it is seen from the photocopy of the document produced that as per that release deed 5/6 share of the executant in 21 cents of land was released in favour of respondent No.1. As per the description of the property in the document that 21 cents appears to have been formed by alluvium of sea. There is no case or evidence that that property fetches any income. Assuming that 21 cents of land fetched some income that neither deprives respondent No.1 of her right to claim maintenance nor absolved petitioner from the liability to pay maintenance so far as it is not shown that income obtained from the 21 cents of land is sufficient to maintain respondent No.1. It is not merely the ownership or possession of some bit of land that is relevant R.P(FC) No.58 of 2009 -: 3 :- for consideration. I may also bear in mind that the document was of the year 1991 and not pressed into service by the petitioner when respondents sought maintenance in M.C. No.168 of 2000. Amount as now enhanced by the court below is at the rate of Rs.700/-, Rs.600/- and Rs.500/- respectively, per month. Learned counsel for respondents submit that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are now aged 12 and 9 years respectively, both are school going and that they have to find money for their basic needs, education, etc. I am not inclined to think that the amount enhanced by the court below is luxury for respondents. The amount enhanced is not beyond the reach of petitioner. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order at the instance of petitioner. Revision is without merit. Revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv