IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 71 of 2008() --------------------- MC.168/2004 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- SAINUDEEN, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, JAVA COTTAGE, KADINAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. RASHEEDA BHANU, D/O.MAIMOOD BEEVI, KAMPIKKAKATHU VEEDU, MANACATTU VILAKOM, CHITTATTUMUKKU. 2. SHAHANA BHANU (MINOR), AGED 11 YEARS, D/O.RASHEEDA BHANU, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER), KAMPIKKAKATHU VEEDU, MANACATTU VILAKOM, CHITTATTUMUKKU. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 71 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The claimant is the child of the petitioner. Earlier there was a claim for maintenance and as per agreement between the parties, an amount of Rs.400/- p.m. was directed to be paid in M.C. No. 348 of 1999. At that time the claimant child was aged only about 3 years. The claimant came to the court after four years with a prayer that the maintenance amount ordered may be enhanced. It was contended that Rs.1500/- is liable to be directed to be paid as enhanced maintenance payable. However, the learned Judge of the Family Court, after considering the rival contentions in the light of the evidence of PW1, the mother of the child, and RW1, the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the amount can be enhanced from Rs.400/- to Rs.800/- p.m. Accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. R.P.F.C.No. 71 of 2008 2 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel submits that the quantum of enhancement granted is grossly excessive and perversely disproportionate to the change of circumstances, even if the same were accepted to be correct. 3. One must note that the petition for enhancement was filed and the impugned order was passed about 6 years after the earlier M.C. under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed. The claimant child at the relevant time when the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed was aged only about 3 years. The cost of living had increased. The child is evidently of the school going age now. There must have been inevitable increase in the earnings of the petitioner, an autorikshaw driver. It was taking into account all these circumstances that the Family Court enhanced the amount to Rs. 800/-from the date of the petition. I am satisfied that the decision to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.400/- to Rs.800/- is absolutely reasonable, cogent and rational and the same does not, at any rate, warrant or justify R.P.F.C.No. 71 of 2008 3 invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. This Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm