IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 RPFC.No. 300 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.24/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------------- P.ALAVI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O HIDRU , PALASSERI HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLI P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MUHAMMED IRSHAD, 15 YEARS, (MINOR). 2. FATHIMA AIMIN, 3 YEARS (MINOR) 3. SUHARA, 39 YEARS, D/O VEERANKUTTY, NADUVIL PEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 300 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner, who had earlier suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has now suffered an order under Section 127 Cr.P.C. granting enhancement of maintenance. He claims to be aggrieved by the said order. 2. On a petition dt.9.8.2005, directions were issued on 1.3.2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance to his minor son aged 12 years, minor daughter aged less than one year and wife aged 37 years maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- Rs.400/ and Rs.500/- p.m. respectively. Long later, the claimants approached the learned Judge of the Family Court, Malappuram with a petition dt.7.1.2008 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the claim for maintenance. The learned Judge, by the impugned order, granted enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- Rs.600/- and Rs.800/- p.m. respectively. Thus the petitioner, who was earlier obliged to R.P.F.C.No. 300 of 2008 2 pay an amount of Rs.1,400/- to all the claimants together is now obliged to pay an amount of Rs.2,100/- p.m. 3. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. That the petitioner has married again and is living with such wife is also admitted. The only contention urged is that the enhancement of maintenance is not justified and at any rate the enhancement actually granted is not proper. 4. There was only the evidence of the claimant wife as PW1 and the petitioner herein as RW1. No other evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced before the Family Court. The earlier petition was filed on 9.8.2005 and the claim for enhancement was filed on 7.1.2008. The passage of time, the increase in the needs of the claimants, the inevitable increase in the cost of living etc. are the grounds raised by the claimants and accepted by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 5. I must alertly remind myself the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a court of revision exercising supervisory and correctional jurisdiction. It is by now trite that the discretion exercised by the courts below and the findings of fact R.P.F.C.No. 300 of 2008 3 rendered shall not be lightly interfered with invoking such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. To justify invocation of such correctional jurisdiction, this Court must be satisfied that the findings of fact are grossly erroneous or perverse and that such vice leads to failure/miscarriage of justice. I am unable to find any such vice vitiating the impugned order. A period of less than three years had elapsed between the claim made in the first case and the second case. The claimants had grown three years old. Evidently inflammatory tendencies in the economy and the consequent rise in price must have been taken into account by the learned Judge. The inevitable increase in earnings is also a relevant input. I am not satisfied that the impugned order deserves interference in revision. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a possibility of the matter being settled, if notice were ordered after admitting this revision petition. I am not persuaded to agree that for such purpose the revision petition deserves admission. The petitioner can, needless to say, initiate steps for conciliation otherwise. For that purpose, I am not persuaded that notice must be issued by this Court. R.P.F.C.No. 300 of 2008 4 7. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm