IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 RPFC.No. 92 of 2008() --------------------- MC.218/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER:RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ K.V.KUMARAN AGED 39 YEARS,S/O.LATE KOTTAN, R/AT KAKKAT, MADIKAI VILLAGE,P.O.KAKKAT KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. B.REMANI, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. POKKAN, R/AT BATTIYANKATT BARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK POST, MYLATTI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 2. RASNA,AGED 14 YEARS 3. RAHUL, AGED 8 YEARS MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT) 4. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.(C).No.92 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Family Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C enhancing the maintenance amount awarded to the wife and 2 children of the petitioner from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner is a person employed abroad. He has a contention that at the moment, he has lost his employment and has come back to India. He expects to go back to his place of employment soon. The marriage, paternity, separate residence etc. are all admitted. The earlier claim was filed in 2003. As per agreement, the quantum of maintenance was fixed at Rs.500/- per mensem per claimant. The claimants, wife and children, in 2007 came before the Court with a plea that the amount fixed is not sufficient and prayed that enhancement of maintenance amount may be granted. 2. The petitioner opposes the application. According to the petitioner, he does not have any wherewithal to pay the amounts claimed. He contended that he has lost his employment and, in these circumstances, he is not in a position to pay enhanced maintenance. 3. The court below considered all the relevant circumstances. Admittedly the petitioner was employed abroad. Admittedly the petitioner is expecting to go abroad shortly. Even R.P.F.(C).No.92 of 2008 2 apart from all that the quantum of maintenance awarded is only Rs.1,000/- per mensem per claimant. I am not persuaded to agree that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive or that the same deserves to be reduced. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be in a position to pay amounts at the enhanced rate if he goes back to his place of employment. He expects to go back within a period of 6 months. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the enhancement may be directed to take effect only from a later date - after 6 months. 5. I am not persuaded to agree that such indulgence also need be shown. Every person employed abroad when he comes home on leave may not be actually working. But that is no reason to postpone the order directing payment of enhanced maintenance. He must make arrangements to pay maintenance during such period also. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction can or need be invoked to interfere with the impugned order. 6. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- R.P.F.(C).No.92 of 2008 3