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. 70 of 2008() --------------------- MC.125/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER : RESPONDENT --------------------------- T.S.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.SAITHU MUHAMMED THALAPPALLIYIL HOUSE, MONGAM, MORAYOOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. ARAKKAL VAHEEDA, D/O.MUHAMMED ARAKKAL HOUSE, KALLIDIMBU, EDAVANNA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DANISH - MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER - GUARDIAN, THE FIRST RESPONDENT. 3. KAMILA - MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER - GUARDIAN, THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY PUBLIC PROSOECUTOR 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. 70 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order passed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The claimants are admittedly his children. He has suffered an order directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- p.m. to his children. The mother of the children is divorced. He has married again. He is an electrician by profession. According to him, he does not have any work or income as he is sick. Sickness is not established. Maintenance was awarded in M.C. No. 205 of 2004. Within two years the claimants had gone before the learned Judge of the Family Court with a prayer for enhancement. The children are now aged 10 years and 8 years. Their needs have increased and the price have gone up. The income of the petitioner must necessarily have increased in the mean time. It is taking into account all these factors that the learned Judge of the Family R.P.F.C.No. 70 of 2008 2 Court directed payment of enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- p.m. to both the children. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enhancement awarded is grossly excessive and perversely disproportionate to the circumstances. Within two years of the passing of the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C., there was absolutely no justification to increase the maintenance amount awarded to Rs.900/- p.m. - an increase of 50%. In these circumstances it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 3. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I do note that the earlier petition was filed in 2004 and the present order granting maintenance was passed on 28.12.2007. The decision to enhance the maintenance amount and the quantum of such enhancement do not at all appeal to me as excessive or sufficient to justify or warrant the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction vested in this court. I need only clarify and state that the amount of Rs.900/- p.m. fixed must be reckoned by the Family Court hereafter as having a reflection on the state of affairs as on the date of R.P.F.C.No. 70 of 2008 3 the order, i.e. 28.12.2007. Any further claim for enhancement must be taken into consideration by reckoning the amount of Rs.900/- as having been fixed on the basis of the circumstances that prevailed on 28.12.2007, the date of the impugned order. 4. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. (R. BASANT) Judge tm