IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 272 of 2008() ---------------------------------- MC.337/2007 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------------------------ M.N. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, MURIKKUVELIL VEEDU, VAZHAMUTTAM KEZHAKKUM MURI, VALLIKKODU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.C.S.MANILAL, MR.M.K.SUBHAKARAN, MR.S.NIDHEESH. RESPONDENT(S): CR.PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------- INDIRA, AGED 67 YEARS, PALANIKKUNNATHAYA USHUS VEEDU, VENMANI PADINJATTUM MURI, VENMANI VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.9084/08 IN RP(FC) NO.272/2008 DISMISSED 4/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 272 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.337/07. The revision petitioner is the husband who is aggrieved by the decision of the Family Court whereby it rejected his request for varying or canceling the maintenance ordered to the wife and allowing enhancement of the maintenance to the wife at Rs.1,000/-. 2. I had the privilege of hearing the counsel for the wife and I had perused the records. A perusal of the revision petition would reveal that a contention is raised to the effect that in an application filed for variation by the husband enhancement cannot be granted at the request of the wife. It is true that Family Court is exercising functions u/s 125 and 127 of Cr.P.C. as a criminal Court but it has also to be borne in mind though it is a proceeding covered by the Criminal Procedure Code it has got all the characteristic of a civil litigation. It has to be remembered that when the husband R.P.(F.C.) NO. 272 OF 2008 -:2:- has moved an application for cancellation or variation of the order the wife in the written statement had denied the ground for varying and at the same time requested the Court to enhance the maintenance. Technicality shall not prevent justice being done and both the parties before the Court below had understood the matter in the correct perceptive and had adduced evidence with respect to the annulment of maintenance as well as for enhancement of maintenance. There is no point now in dragging one of the parties to another proceedings again in the form of an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. 3. In the decision reported in P.N.Manikkuttan Nair v. K.R.Girija Amma 2000 Crl.L.J.3726 it is stated that when an application for cancellation is made on the fact that the wife became an earning member that itself is a change of circumstance which can weigh with the court and it can change the order.” 4. Similarly a learned Judge of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in Alagappan v. Thilagam (2000 Crl.L.J.3239) held that though the order of maintenance is R.P.(F.C.) NO. 272 OF 2008 -:3:- passed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties application for enhancement of maintenance would still be maintainable. Therefore let me first consider about the husband's contention. The husband would contend that both had entered into a compromise. He was having employment abroad and that is why when persuaded by the Court and the counsel he agreed for a compromise by fixing the maintenance at Rs.700/-. According to him by the conduct of the wife by filing innumerable number of litigations he had lost his job and as the wife is now in a better comfortable position the order has to be cancelled. I had gone through the evidence of PW1 and RW1. The evidence of husband itself would reveal that he has married again and he is having two children and he was in the foreign country for a large number of years. When such is the situation he has necessarily to look after his wife. Secondly, admittedly they had entered into a compromise and the wife was a retired nurse and there was no change of circumstance thereafter. He himself has admitted that except the factors proposed nothingelse is available to show her R.P.(F.C.) NO. 272 OF 2008 -:4:- income or reception of higher income so as to vary the order u/s 127 Cr.P.C. Therefore the Family Court was right in rejecting the prayer of the husband. 5. So far as the wife is concerned as stated by me it is permissible in the light of the decision referred to above that even an order of maintenance on the basis of a compromise can be enhanced. The wife would depose before Court that the husband is having substantial income and he has large extent of properties. She would also depose that she had retired and had started receiving pension only in April. Now the escalation of price had certainly given rise to high cost of living and a nominal increase of Rs.300/- by the Family Court cannot be said to be on the higher side under the facts and circumstance of the case. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the grounds alleged and therefore the revision is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-