IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 484 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2007 IN OP. 243 /2007 IN MC.195/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- PARAPPURATH SAINUDHEEN KURIKKAL, S/O.MUHAMMED KURIKKAL, MANJERI (P.O), MANJERI AMSOM, DESOM, MALAPPURAM (DT) PIN 676 121. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. AREAKKATTU SALMATH, D/O.ALAVI, AREAKKATTU HOUSE, ITHILPARAMBU, KOTTAPPADI, DOWNHILL (PO), MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM (DT) 2. SANA, 13 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O.SAINUDHEEN KURIKKAL, (MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, MOTHERIST PETITIONER). BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P(F.C).No.484 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C granting enhancement of maintenance to the wife and child of the petitioner. Admittedly in proceedings initiated in 2004 as M.C.8 of 2004, there has been a direction to pay maintenance @ Rs.500/- and Rs.400/- respectively to the estranged wife and child. Three years after the initiation of the proceedings earlier, the wife and child came before the Family Court claiming enhancement of maintenance. They contended that their needs have increased and the means of the petitioner herein must also have increased proportionately. The matter was taken up for trial along with another O.P filed by the claimant/wife. The claimant/wife was not granted any relief in the said O.P. But in the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C, enhancement of maintenance was awarded. The petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.800/- and Rs.750/- per mensem respectively to his wife and child. The child is aged 13 years. R.P(F.C).No.484 of 2007 2 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order. What is the grievance ? The short contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enhancement of an amount of Rs.300/- to the wife and Rs.350/- for the child is unjustified. Their needs may have increased but there is nothing to show that the means of the petitioner has increased to justify such a direction for payment of enhanced maintenance. 3. The petitioner was employed allegedly earlier as a driver driving heavy motor vehicles. It is the case of the petitioner that he does not have such employment now. Why does he not continue his earlier work as the driver ? It is contended that he was afflicted with disease. There was detection of kidney stones. He had to undergo some surgery. Significantly nothing has been produced to show that he is not able to work as a driver. His driving licence has not been produced to show that the same has been cancelled. No document has also been produced to show that he was constrained to discontinue his earlier work as a driver. Significantly no medical evidence is also adduced. No document has also been produced to show that the alleged ailments of the petitioner has resulted in his inability to work as a driver. R.P(F.C).No.484 of 2007 3 Inevitable inference in these circumstances can only be that the petitioner continues to work as a driver. It would be puerile to expect an estranged wife to produce detailed and specific evidence about the income of the petitioner. Normal probabilities have to be taken into account. The inevitable inflationary tendencies in the economy will have to be borne in mind. The inevitable increase in the cost of living and income over a span of 3 years will also have to be taken into consideration. The increase in need of the claimants will also have to be realistically considered. 4. That exactly is what the learned Judge of the Family Court has done. The petitioner has a case that the petitioner is now employed not as a driver but as a care taker. He could certainly have produced evidence to show that he is employed as a care taker and about the quantum of income which he derives from such employment. Crucially and significantly no attempt has been made to adduce such evidence. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court, to my mind, was eminently justified in coming to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for enhanced maintenance. The learned Judge has committed no error warranting or justifying the R.P(F.C).No.484 of 2007 4 invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction in directing enhancement of Rs.300/- to the wife and Rs.350/- to the child. I am satisfied that the conclusion of the court below is absolutely cogent, reasonable, fair, just and modest. The same does not warrant any interference at all. 6. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-