IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 162 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/01/2008 IN OP 574/07 IN MC.695/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- ABDUL JALEEL.P, AGED 33, S/O. HYDROS MUSLIYAR (LATE), PULIKKODAN HOUSE, CHERUR AMSOM, MUTHUVIL KUNDU, CHERUR.P.O, VENGARA TALUK, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- AROOSA, AGED 4 (MINOR), REP. BY HER MOTHER, SOUDABI, AGED 26, D/O. HYDRU.C, MARAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDIYIRUPPU AMSOM, COLONY ROAD, KONDOTTY.P.O, ERANAD TALUK. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 162 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Sec.127 of the Cr.P.C. by the Family Court enhancing the maintenance amount awarded to the child of the petitioner from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- per mensem. The child was earlier granted maintenance of Rs.500/- per mense three years earlier as per a petition filed in 2004. In 2007, the child through its guardian and mother, came to the Court claiming enhancement of the maintenance to Rs.3,000/- per mensem. The application was stoutly opposed. It was contended that there is no justification in the claim for enhancement and, at any rate, the quantum of enhancement claimed is grossly unsustainable and perverse. 2. The matter was taken up for trial along with another R.P.(FC) No. 162 of 2008 -: 2 :- O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the petitioner herein. By the impugned common order, the claim for restitution was turned down; but enhancement was granted to the child raising the maintenance amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- per mensem. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court appears to have taken note of the lapse of time, the inevitable increase in wages, the inevitable increase in the cost of living as also the increased needs of the child who was only a tiny tot at the time when the earlier order was passed. He has now entered into an educational institution. There is no tangible evidence about the break up of the amount needed for the child to justify the claim for Rs.3,000/- per mensem; nor was there compelling evidence to show what the earnings of the petitioner was when the earlier order passed and the increase from that date to the date of the petition. But the learned Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner is admittedly the Proprietor of a manufacturing unit engaged in manufacturing cleaning agents and chemicals. He had a visiting card which shows that the petitioner had two land phones, one office phone and a mobile phone. It was further seen that the petitioner was manufacturing the said product for a number of years in the past. He did not, of course, produce any satisfactory evidence to show his income. R.P.(FC) No. 162 of 2008 -: 3 :- 4. It is, in these circumstances, taking note of all the relevant inputs about the increased need of the child and the probable increased income of the petitioner, that the learned Judge proceeded to direct enhancement of maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/- per mensem. The mother of the child had produced the documents to show that the child had joined the school. There was increased need of Rs.240/- per mensem by way of tuition fee and vehicle charges themselves. Apart from that, there is admission fee of Rs.450/- as also various other expenses for books etc., which amounts also must inevitably have been met out of maintenance amount. 5. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and exercise. The revisional jurisdiction is one of superintendence and correction. The discretion exercised by the subordinate courts and the findings of fact entered by them shall not be lightly interfered with. Unless the findings of fact and the discretions exercised are grossly perverse and they, in turn, lead to miscarriage of justice, such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction shall not be invoked. 6. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that there is any warrant of invoking such R.P.(FC) No. 162 of 2008 -: 4 :- revisional powers of superintendence and correction to interfere with the impugned order. 7. This revision petition, in these circumstances, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge