IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 3 of 2007() -------------------- MC.12/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- K.ABOOBACKER, AGED 42, S/O.MOHAMMED, PROPRIETOR, BEKKER INDUSTRIES, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KUMBLA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. AMINA, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.K.ABOOBACKER, D/O.ABDULLA, ALUR, MULIYAR, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. MISRIYA, AGED 7 YEARS, REP. BY HER MOTHER, IST PETITIONER. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.F.C. No. 3 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order passed under section 127 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per month to his wife and child aged 27 years and 7 years respectively. 2. Marriage, paternity and passing of the earlier order are not disputed now. The earlier claim under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2001. It was finally allowed on 22.4.03. Direction was issued under section 125 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively to his wife and child. After five years from the filing of the earlier petition the claimants came to the court in 2006 with a request for enhanced maintenance. Passage of time, the inevitable increase in the cost of living, increase in the earnings of the petitioner herein and the RPFC.3/07 : 2 : increase in the quantum of needs of the claimants, who include a growing child, were pressed into service as circumstances justifying the claim for enhancement of maintenance. The petitioner was admittedly running a small scale industrial unit earlier. He did not raise the contention in the present proceedings that the said industrial unit is not running now. But at the stage of evidence, the petitioner advanced a plea that he was constrained to close down the said small scale industrial unit and he has no income now. The first claimant wife and the petitioner examined themselves as PW1 and RW1 respectively. The claimants proved Ext.A1, the earlier order. The petitioner relied on Ext.B1 series, B2 and B3. Ext.B1 series are pressed into service to bolster his belated plea that the small scale industrial unit is not working now. Ext.B1 series are the electricity bills produced. Ext.B2 was produced to show that the petitioner has no landed properties and Ext.B3 was produced to show that demand was made on him by the District Industries Centre to pay the arrears of amounts due. RPFC.3/07 : 3 : 3. The learned judge of the Family Court adverted to all relevant aspects to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per month respectively to the claimants, his wife and child. 4. The short contention that is urged before me is that the quantum of enhancement awarded is excessive. I note that the learned judge of the Family Court had realistically taken note of all the relevant circumstances. The passage of time of about five years from the date of the earlier claim, the inevitable increase in the earnings of all employed persons which must have taken place, the increase in the cost of living and the increasing needs of a wife and a child who grows have all been taken into account and the impugned enhancement has been awarded. 5. I must alertly remind myself of the nature and quality of the jurisdiction of this Court sitting as a Court of revision to exercise the jurisdiction of correction and superintendence to interfere with the findings of fact and the RPFC.3/07 : 4 : exercise of discretions by the subordinate courts. Unless the findings of fact and/or the exercise of discretions is grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice leads to miscarriage of justice, this Court shall not ordinarily invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree with any circumstances exist which can persuade this Court to invoke such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Even reckoning the petitioner as an able bodied person, who was earlier running a small scale industrial unit, I am satisfied that the quantum of enhancement awarded is absolutely reasonable, cogent, just and fair. The same does not warrant interference. This R.P.F.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed. All amounts deposited, needless to say, shall be forthwith released to the claimants. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks