IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 5 of 2004() ------------------------------ MC.399/2001 of OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONER (S)/ PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- THANKAMANI, D/O. VELAYUDHAN, NELLIKKAL VEEDU, CHEROTTU VAYAL, KALATHUM KUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, NADAKKAVU POLICE. BY ADV.MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O. RARICHAN, CHEROTTU VAYALIL, CHENKILATTU VEEDU, KALATHUM KUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, NADAKKAVU POLICE. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P(F.C)No. 5 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This Revision is filed against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C. 399/2001. It is an application filed by the wife for enhancement of the maintenance from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/- as envisaged under Section 127 of the Crl.P.C. The husband and wife had put an end to their matrimonial relationship and the husband has obtained a divorce against the wife. The Family Court in its earlier order passed in 1998 had ordered a maintenance of Rs. 300/- to the wife. Now the wife wants enhancement on the ground that the financial position of the husband is improved and the cost of living had gone up high and that she is unwell and requires medical expenses. 2. On the contra husband would contend that his financial position has further come down and he has become depended on his sons. The court below on evaluation of the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, Rws. 1 and 2, Exts. A1 to A9 and Exts. B1 and X1 came to the conclusion that the wife has not succeeded in proving the R.P.(F.C) No. 5/2004 -2- case set up by her. Therefore disallowed the prayer for enh ncement. 3. A perusal of Ext. B1 document would reveal that in the year 1998, the petitioner herein had purchased 10 cents of property for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. RW2 Mohanan is one of the witnesses to the document and he had deposed before the court that the petitioner is living with one Nithyanandan. The earlier judgment would reveal that there was a case of adultery against the wife with this Nithyanandan. Whatever it may be, the petitioner had purchased 10 cents of land and when asked about the source of consideration, she would depose that her sister had taken loan from the bank by mortgaging the property. Except for her mere oral assertion, there is no other evidence to establish that factum. So far as the husband is concerned, he is only having 3 ¼ cents of land. It is also admitted that there is a case where the brother of the wife is alleged to have stabbed on him on his stomach. Even in the previous case he had deposed before the court that the 'Papad' business which he was having had been stopped and there is no source of income for him. He R.P.(F.C) No. 5/2004 -3- had two sons and it is his version that he is depended on them. So far as the financial status of the husband is concerned, there is nothing to show it has improved. But on the contra, it would reveal that it has diminished. So far as the wife is concerned, her acquisition of the property points out a better financial position. So the sum and substance of the materials available would indicate that there are no circumstances proved under this case to enhance the maintenance under Section 127 of the Crl.P.C. Therefore the R.P(F.C) lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm