IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.NO. 124 OF 2003() ---------------------- MC.396/2002 OF FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. AVUNHIPURAVAN SUBAIDA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. MOIDEEN, NAYARUKANDI HOUSE, CHENGARA P.O., IRIVETTY. 2. SHAMLIY7A, AGED 4 YEAR5S, MINOR, D/O. CHITHANAPURAVAN VEERANKUTTY, MINOR PETITIONER IS REPRESENTS BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.P.BABU KARTHIKEYAN. RESPONDENT(S): R4ESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- CHITHANAPPURAVAN VEERANKUTTY, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. ALAVIKKUTTY, VELLARAMKOLILNGAL HOUSE, AMAYOOR P.O., KARAKKUNNU. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P(FC) NO.124 of 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance awarded to the daughter aged 4 years, the mother and daughter have come up in revision. 2. Respondent married Subaida, mother of petitioner No.2 on 20.3.1983. Four children are born in the wedlock. When difference of opinion erupted between the husband and wife, the latter started separate residence with one of the four children, petitioner No.2. Three children remained with the respondent. While so on 10.4.2002 respondent divorced Subaida. Petitioners claimed maintenance from the respondent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for petitioner No.2. They claimed that respondent has sufficient means to pay that amount to her. Respondent claimed that he has already filed O.P. No.413 of 2002 for custody of petitioner No.2 and that claim made on behalf of her is excessive. He pleaded inability to pay such amount as maintenance. According to him he is making livelihood by collecting and selling plantain leaves and is getting only Rs.1,500/- per month. Court below recorded evidence of both sides. Mother of petitioner No.2 gave evidence as P.W1. Respondent gave R.P(FC) No.124 of 2003 -: 2 :- evidence as R.W.1. He proved money order receipts, six in number to show payment of maintenance allowance to the daughter at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. Court below as per the impugned order found that Rs.350/- per month is sufficient for the maintenance of the daughter. That order is under challenge in this revision. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that maintenance awarded to the petitioner No.2 is low and required interference. 4. I have gone through the evidence on record and the order under challenge. It is a fact that respondent has been paying maintenance to petitioner No.2 at the rate of Rs.200/- per month as seen from Ext.D1 series. Court below has taken into account the same and found that Rs.350/- per month will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the child as on the date of application. It is also to be noted that child was aged 4 years at the time the application was made. On the facts and circumstances I am not inclined to think that maintenance awarded to the child is alarmingly low and required interference in revision. I bear in mind that there is a remedy available to the petitioners under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on proof of changed circumstances to claim enhancement of maintenance. As such no interference is required with the impugned R.P(FC) No.124 of 2003 -: 3 :- order. Revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv