IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 RPFC.No. 96 of 2009() --------------------- MC.94/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- S.K.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 44 YEARS, KIZHAKKEMURIYIL HOUSE, CHENGALAM KARA CHENGALAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM. BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH S.BRITE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- GEETHA RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS, KIZHAKKEMURIYIL HOUSE, CHENGALAM KARA, CHENGALAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------ R.P (FC) NO. 96 OF 2009 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 ORDER --------- The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C No. 94 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam. The respondent herein, the wife of the revision petitioner is the petitioner therein. She originally filed a petition as M.C No. 32 of 2004 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month by order dated 5-10-2005. Seeking an order to enhance the said amount to Rs. 3,000/-, she preferred M.C. 94 of 2008 u/s. 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a pleading that her requirement and value of essential commodities had gone up and the revision petitioner who is a Central Government employee was drawing Rs. 12,000/- per month. 2. The revision petitioner opposed the petition stating that he has preferred a petition as O.P.No. 362 of 2004 seeking a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultry and it was decreed R.P (FC) NO. 96 OF 2009 2 and that respondent is getting Rs. 1500/- per month as rent of a building which was let out by her and she has got a job in Periyar Plywood as computer operator and was getting Rs. 3000/- per month. The respondent and the revision petitioner were examined as PW1 and CPW1 respectively and Exts.PI, D1 and D2 were marked. The lower court on appraisal of the evidence arrived a finding that the respondent is entitled to get monthly maintenance at an enhanced rate of Rs. 600/- from 400/-. Consequently petition was allowed and maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 600/- per month. 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order this revision petition was filed. 4. Having heard either side and perusing the order impugned, I find that the revision petitioner is employed in B.S.N.L and is getting a gross salary of Rs. 14773/- as evidenced by Ext.D1 and that there is little material to come to a conclusion that respondent has got any job or income for her maintenance. In R.P (FC) NO. 96 OF 2009 3 cross examination, CPW1 admitted that the income of the respondent stated by him is on the basis of hearsay information, which requires no consideration. It is a matter of common knowledge that the value of essential commodities are shooting up. The earlier order which is marked as Ext.P1 is dated 5-10- 2005. There is change of circumstance. Income of the revision petitioner had also increased. Though the marital tie was divorced as evidenced by Ext.P2, the respondent, being not remarried, is entitled to be maintained by the revision petitioner. In the above circumstances the order impugned enhancing monthly maintenance to Rs. 600/- from Rs. 400/- is not at all exorbitant. It is neither beyond the means and capacity of the revision petitioner. The amount is very meagre. It is on a very lower side. The revision petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. P.S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE PKK