IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 147 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.166/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETGITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ C.K.MADHAVAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.APPU, CHATHOTHKANDI, KOLAKKAD POST, ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & STATE ------------------------------- 1. THANKAM P., AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.APPU, CHEMMAD VEETTIL THAZHAM, KANNAMKARA, P.O.CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 147 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The claimant, divorced wife, was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- p.m. in M.C. 166 of 2004. The claimant came to court in 2006 alleging that the amount ordered is insufficient, that the income of the petitioner has increased, that she is sick and requires expenses for treatment and that the amount awarded is insufficient. 2. The claimant examined herself as PW1. Affidavit of the respondent was also filed. The court below, taking all the relevant circumstances into account, came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. can be awarded. 3. There is no specific and tangible evidence available about the present income of the petitioner herein. Of course there is admitted evidence that he is getting Rs.1300/- as monthly pension when the M.C. was disposed of. Nothing was produced R.P.F.C.No. 147 of 2008 2 to show his present income by way of pension. The claimant has a contention that the petitioner is employed after his retirement and that he is getting income from such source. Admittedly the petitioner has married again after the divorce. All these circumstances were taken into account by the learned Judge of the Family Court to direct payment of enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. An enhancement of Rs.250/- after the lapse of a period of three years is the amount awarded. 4. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enhancement awarded is excessive. In fact though there has been passage of time there has been no serious change in circumstance affecting the quantum of maintenance which the petitioner was liable to pay and the claimant was entitled to receive. In these circumstances enhancement should not have been granted. At any rate, enhancement of Rs.250/- is excessive. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific and tangible evidence available except the oral evidence of PW1. But the passage of a period of 3 R.P.F.C.No. 147 of 2008 3 years, the indication available from the fact that the petitioner has married again and the assertion of the claimant about her advancing age and ill-health do, according to me, perfectly justified the meager enhancement of Rs.250/- At any rate, I am not persuaded to agree that there is any vice vitiating the impugned order, which can justify or warrant invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Sitting as a court of revision exercising correctional and supervisory jurisdiction, I am not persuaded to interfere with the meager enhancement ordered after a lapse of 3 years from the initiation of the earlier proceedings. 5. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm