IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 400 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.464/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ULLASAN, NITHEESH BHAVAN, NEYTHODU CHERRY POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE, PUTHEN VEEDU, MUTHALAI KOCHUVILA, ALANCHERRY ANCHAL EROOR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OOF ATTORNEY HOLDER USHA S.BABU. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. AMBILI, AGED 43 YEARS D/O. THANKAMMA, KODIYIL VEEDU, VELAMANOOR CHERRY KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 2. ABHINANTH, AGED 12 YEARS, MINOR S/O.ULLASAN, DO...DO. REPRESENTED BY MOTHER IST RESPONDENT ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 400 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kollam in C.M.P.634/07 in M.C.464/03. The wife and child were awarded maintenance of Rs.750/- and 500 respectively as per order dated 11.2.2005 and just after a period of two years they have moved the court for enhancement of the amount fabulously. The Family Court without properly analyzing enhanced it to Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- from 31.3.2009 and it is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. I had perused the order passed by the Family Court and considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. What is the real change of circumstance is not clear from the order written by the Family Court. But there is one change of circumstance known to everybody is the escalation of cost of living now. The attempt of the husband was to prove that 31 cents of land has been purchased by the wife and there are rubber plantations and it is submitted that R.P.(F.C.) NO. 400 OF 2009 -:2:- rubber trees are cut and removed. Actually there is no pin pointed evidence on that regard. The evidence available is that the husband is working abroad as a store keeper or so. 3. But, on the other hand it is submitted by the husband's side that he is only a casual labourer getting an income of Rs.7,000/- Indian currency from the gulf country. It is seen that he is employed in a foreign country for quiet a number of years and the need of the wife and children has gone up also. The order is directed to take effect from 31.3.09. Therefore at the rate of 20% per year an enhancement of 80% of the award amount can be granted which if worked out would come to Rs.1,350/- for the wife and Rs.900/- for the child. Therefore I modify the order passed by the Family Court and fix the rate of maintenance to the wife at Rs.3,500/- and to the child at the rate of Rs.900/- with effect from 31.3.2009. If any amount is paid that has to be given credit to. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. Ul/- R.P.(F.C.) NO. 400 OF 2009 -:3:- The figure “Rs.3,500/-” occurring in the 15th line in page 2 of the final order dated 21.1.2010 in RP(FC)No.400/2009 is substituted as “Rs.1,350/-” vide order dated 8.3.2010 in Crl.M.A.2303/2010 in RP(FC)No.400/2009. Sd/- Registrar(Judicial).