IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 85 of 2009() --------------------- MC.383/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- VASUDEVAN, S/O. LATE U.T.KRISHNAN, AGED 72 YEARS, C/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI, KATHRITHODI, MULAYANKAVU, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, MR.R.SREEHARI. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KUNHILAKSHMY W/O. VASUDEVAN, PUTHAN VEETTIL, CHUNDAMPETTA, THATHANAMPULLY POST, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN, MR.P.R.AJITHKUMAR. R2 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2516/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.85/2009 DISMISSED 17/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.85 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.383/2007. The wife, who was satisfied with the order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/= as per the previous order dated 30.7.2005, moved an application on 19.10.2007 for enhancement of the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,500/=. 2. It has to be remembered that status of the husband did not change during the relevant period and no additional income has befallen on him so as to raise the order of maintenance exorbitantly. I say so because the family court has passed the revised order almost making it 300% more than what had been granted in 2005. The ground realities in life are to be realised and the husband’s and wife's necessity have to be taken into consideration and the court has always remembered when a 67 year old wife is ordered to be paid maintenance by a 72 year old husband, there will be equal health problems under ordinary : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.85 OF 2009 circumstances to the husband as well. When the wife produces two medical bills, the family court has accepted it and when the husband does not produce it, rejected his case of ailment and proceeds to decide the case. We are not on the conduct of the husband or wife in the case but only on fixing the quantum the maintenance which should be reasonable to both. The family court has definitely arrived at a finding that the total pension derived by the husband is Rs.6,741/=. The husband is living alone in a rented house. He would submit that he has got a home nurse but the wife would contend that she is a concubine but there is no finding regarding any concubinage. One has to get at least the service of a servant maid to clean the house and to prepare food as he is aged 72 years. The family court finds that necessity of the wife has increased so much but would hold that a servant maid is available for a wage of Rs.500/= per month. I feel that the ground realities shall not be forgotten. The husband is bound to pay rent to the house. He has to pay electricity charges and he has to live and spent more for the purchase of articles for preparation : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.85 OF 2009 of the food. Over and above this, there will be necessity for him also in the form of some medicine taking into consideration that he is also 72 years old. The family court found that necessity of the wife in 2005 was only for Rs.750/= and granted her the maintenance. An application for enhancement of maintenance is filed within two years and the family court has increased it at 300%. I feel that such an approach should not have been adopted by the family court. The family court should have been reasonable in the matter. I feel that enhancement of maintenance by an increase of more than 125% may not be necessary in this case which would work out to Rs.1,722/= which I round as Rs.1,700/=. 3. Therefore the order passed by the family court is modified by reducing the maintenance to Rs.1,700/= in stead of Rs.2,500/= which shall be payable from the date of filing of the petition namely 19.10.2007. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.85 OF 2009