IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 RPFC.No. 509 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.374/2007 of Family Court, Malappuram. .................... : REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. HYDROSE KUTTY HAJI, PULPARAMBIL GOROTHIYIL VEEDU, OMACHAPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, OMACHAPUZHA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. RASEENA, D/O. MAMMAVU HAJI, VALAPPIL POKKINIYAKATH VEEDU, THEKKAN KUTOOR AMSOM, PULLUR DESOM, THEKKAN KUTTOOR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RAMISA MARVA, (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.509 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May 2008 O R D E R There is no representation for the petitioner. The petitioner was directed under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensum to his minor child. That order was passed on 4/10/2006. The petitioner had not challenged the said order. An attempt was made to challenge the said order by filing a revision petition along with an application for condonation of delay that was allowed subject to conditions. But as the conditions have not been satisfied, the said application Crl.M.A.No.13019/2007 stands dismissed now. 2. After the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C was passed on 4/10/2006, the petitioner went before the Family Court long later with an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C to reduce the amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensum awarded to the minor child. The learned Judge of the Family Court by the impugned order rejected the said prayer. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. As stated earlier, the order passed under R.P.F.C.No.509/07 2 Section 125 Cr.P.C dated 4/10/2006 has now become final without challenge. It is for the petitioner to show change of circumstances, if any to justify the prayer for reduction of the maintenance amount awarded by invoking the powers under Section 127 Cr.P.C except to contend that the initial fixing of the quantum at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensum is not justified. No other contentions are seen raised. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court, according to me, was eminently correct in coming to the conclusion that no circumstance exists justifying or warranting modification of the quantum of maintenance fixed within a period of one year. I am not satisfied that there is no vice vitiating the impugned order that can persuade me to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.509/07 3 R.P.F.C.No.509/07 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008