IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 310 of 2008() ----------------------------------- (M.C.NO.74/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM) REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:- ---------------------------------------------------------- THUMBAYIL ABDUL HAMEED, S/O THUMBAYIL ALAVI, THUMBAYIL HOUSE, KOORIYADU P.O., PAKKADAPPURAYA, KUTTOOR AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT. S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. POOZHITHARA HASEENA, D/O AHAMMEDKUTTY, KAKKADAMPURAM, KUTTOOR NORTH P.O., (VIA) VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 2. HASILA PARVIN (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 310 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. enhancing the maintenance granted to his minor child after a lapse of six years. In 2002 the child was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. The child through its mother and guardian claimed enhancement after a period of six years. The learned Judge of the Family Court, considering the contentions raised in the light of the sworn testimony of the claimant's mother on the one hand and the petitioner on the other, came to the conclusion that enhanced maintenance claimed at Rs.2,500/- p.m. cannot be granted and enhanced maintenance can be granted at the rate of Rs.800/- p.m. Accordingly the impugned order was passed. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 2. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the petitioner though there R.P.F.C.No. 310 of 2008 2 has been a lapse of six years, though the child must inevitably have grown and though its expenses may have increased, so far as he is concerned there has been no change in status, which could oblige him to pay higher rate of maintenance to his child. Though conflicting assertions are made about the income of the petitioner, the learned Judge of the Family Court took note only of the fact that he has robust health and he continues to do the job in a bakery as claimed by him. It is noted that he has married another lady and has two children now after passing the earlier order. That must give the court an idea about his own assessment of his financial ability as he has voluntarily embraced such additional responsibility. 3. In any view of the matter, taking note of the lapse of six years from the date of the original order, taking note of the requirements of the claimant child and taking note of the inevitable increase in cost of living, I am of the view that the quantum of enhancement fixed by the Family Court is absolutely justified and does not, at any rate, warrant invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction at the instance of the petitioner. R.P.F.C.No. 310 of 2008 3 4. This Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm