IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 265 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.190/2005 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... : REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT; ------------------------------------------------ GEORGE THOMAS, S/O.P.C. THOMAS, PUTHENKALAPPURACKIL VEEDU, MANALITHARA P.O., VADAKKENCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SELVY.K. VARKEY, D/O.KURIAN VARKEY, THELAKKATTU HOUSE, PUTHNCRUEZ P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MANU, AGED 12 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST PETITONER, SELVY K. VARKEY. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.SEBASTIAN TOMY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.265 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this R.P.F.C assails a direction for payment of enhanced maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Paternity is not now disputed. In 1996, a maintenance claim was filed and the same was disposed of by order dated 31.12.1997 under which an amount of Rs.500/- per mensem (the maximum permissible then) was awarded as maintenance to the claimant/child. The claimant/child grew up. The cost of living increased. The salary of the petitioner also increased and in these circumstances the claimant/child through his mother came to court with a claim for enahanced maintenance. The petitioner resisted the claim on various grounds. He does not have sufficient means to pay any enhanced maintenance. That the mother of the child is well employed in Yemen that he is sick and that he has to look after his mother staying along with him in a rented house, were the contentions raised. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The mother of the claimant examined herself as PW1 to prove Exts.A1 to A4. The petitioner examined himself as RW1. He examined one more witness RW2. Exts.B1 to B27 were proved. R.P.F.C. No.265 of 2006 2 2. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay enhanced maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per mensem. Accordingly the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The short grievance raised is that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is excessive and perversely disproportionate to the means of the petitioner. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am unable to agree. The petitioner admittedly has a monthly salary of Rs.8,465/-. I shall assume for the sake of arguments that the mother of the child is well employed and may be getting a handsome salary. But that will not in any way entitle the petitioner to claim absolution from liability to pay maintenance or to grant reasonable enhancement of maintenance from time to time. As indicated earlier, the child has grown. About 8 years has elapsed from the date of the earlier order. The purchasing power of the rupee has fallen. The cost of living has increased. Admittedly income of the petitioner has increased two fold. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that R.P.F.C. No.265 of 2006 3 the meager enhancement in maintenance granted by the learned Judge of the Family Court warrants interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The order is just, fair and reasonable. The same does not call for interference. 5. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say that the order of stay now shall stand vacated and the claimant shall be entitled to claim amounts due under the impugned order. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-