IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 205 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.232/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ MANILAL, S/O.VASU, AGED 37, PALLATHUPARAMBU, PONJIKARA, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.RATHEESH SMT.SUMA RATHEESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- PADMAJA, D/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, PALLIPARAMBU HOUSE, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC)No. 205 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner/husband in this revision petition challenges the order passed under Sec.127 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Judge of the Family Court turning down his prayer to alter and modify the order passed earlier under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. in favour of his wife. By the said order under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.750/- per mensem as maintenance to the respondent herein – his wife. There was a further direction to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per mensem to his child. No challenge was raised against that part of the direction. 2. In the earlier application, the petitioner was set ex parte. He filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. The said petition was rejected. The said order was not R.P.(FC)No. 205 of 2008 -: 2 :- challenged. In the said proceedings under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. also contentions were raised that the wife is residing separately without sufficient cause and that she is not unable to maintain herself. In the absence of challenge, the said order under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. had become final. 3. Long later, the petitioner filed the present application under Sec.127 Cr.P.C. reiterating the very same unsuccessful contentions which were raised in the proceedings under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. The wife is residing separately without sufficient cause. She is not unable to maintain herself, it was contended. 4. No specific contention was raised about any change of circumstances that had taken place after the passing of the order under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/husband as P.W.1 and a friend of his as P.W.2 were examined in support of the assertion that the wife is not entitled for separate maintenance. The wife did not, of course, examine herself. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.127 Cr.P.C. 5. On the question of law, there can be no controversy. In R.P.(FC)No. 205 of 2008 -: 3 :- order to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.127 Cr.P.C. a court must be satisfied that there has been change of circumstances subsequent to the passing of the earlier order under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. The re-agitation of the very same contentions which were earlier unsuccessfully raised in the proceedings under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. cannot be attempted or permitted in a subsequent proceedings under Sec.127 Cr.P.C. Significantly, there is no contention of any intervening change of circumstances. The substratum or the crux of the contention is that the findings in the earlier order are not correct. I am, in these circumstances, not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the jurisdiction under Sec.127 Cr.P.C. Even the fact that the respondent/wife did not take witness stand does not persuade me to disagree with the learned Judge of the Family Court. Inasmuch as the fundamental fact which is to operate as the plank or foundation for an alteration of the maintenance allowance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. - of change in circumstances subsequent to the passing of the earlier order, is not pleaded or proved satisfactorily, the conclusion R.P.(FC)No. 205 of 2008 -: 4 :- appears to be inevitable, that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction does not deserve to be invoked against the impugned order. 6. This R.P.(FC) is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge