IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 415 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.366/2006 of FAMILY COURT THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- P.G. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, PEERUMETHU VEEDU, KOIPURAM VILLAGE, KADAPRA MURI, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- LEELA R. PILLAI, THEKKEKKUTTE VEEDU, PULLAD MURI, KOIPURAM VILLAGE, KURUNGAZHA P.O.,THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DT ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.415 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 3rd day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court Thiruvalla in M.C.No. 366/06. It was an application filed by the wife for enhancement of the maintenance. The court below had ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.350/- on 24.6.02. It is to enhance that amount the petition is filed. The Court, after considering the materials, granted enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- It is against that decision the present revision is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the court below has arbitrarily enhanced the maintenance. He would submit that the the wife is a person who is having income and also employment but the court below did not accept those R.P.(F.C) No.415 OF 2007 2 contentions. It is true that it has come out in evidence that she is having 14 cents of property. The Court did not accept the contention that there are rubber trees in the said property. The court below held that there may be about 6 or 8 coconut trees in the property. On the other hand as far as the husband is concerned he is employed in security personnel in the State Bank of Travancore having basic pay of Rs.4,935/- and he is also deriving pension. So his income would be somewhere near Rs.7,000/- per month. Though it is contended that his mother is a cancer patient, nothing is produced to established the same. 7 years had elapsed now. Considering the present escalation of price and the huge increase in the cost of living, Rs.900/- cannot be considered as an unreasonable or excessive amount. Therefore I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Family Court. Therefore the revision lacks merits and dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns