IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.NO. 279 OF 2009() ---------------------- MC.848/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- CHATHANACHATH RAMAN NAIR,63 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR,ALATHIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, ALATHIYOOR.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ RAJALAKSHMI, 49 YEARS,W/O.RAMAN NAIR, RAJNEESH NIVAS,MARAKKARA.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC). NO.279 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of the order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C. No.848 of 2008 enhancing the maintenance from Rs.600/- per month to Rs.1,000/- per month. Respondent had filed M.C.No.340 of 2007 for maintenance which was disposed of as per a joint settlement. As per that order petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month from 8.5.2007 onwards. That was at a time when petitioner was earning dearness allowance at the rate of 40%. After 1½ years respondent filed M.C. No.848 of 2008 seeking maintenance under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). That was allowed and maintenance payable was enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per month. It is contended by learned counsel that in the joint statement filed in M.C. No.340 of 2007 respondent had after obtaining signature of petitioner inserted a clause that petitioner has to stay with the respondent and that matter is pending consideration in appeal in this court. I do not however find any bearing for that alleged incorporation in the settlement so far as the claim of R.P(FC) No.279 of 2009 -: 2 :- respondent for maintenance under Sec.125(1) of the Code is concerned. It is not disputed that M.C. No.340 of 2007 was disposed of directing petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,00/- per month. On the changed circumstances respondent claimed enhancement of maintenance. Petitioner admitted that he is now drawing a pension of Rs.3,145/- per month with 60% D.A. as against 40% he was drawing when M.C. No.340 of 2007 was filed. Petitioner was frank enough to admit that cost of living has increased. Enhancement ordered is only at the rate of Rs.400/- per month which is not excessive or beyond the reach of petitioner. If the appeal as pointed out by petitioner is pending, certainly disposal of this revision will not affect the right of petitioner to raise appropriate contentions in the appeal. With the above observation, this revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv