IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 441 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/03/2005 IN CMP.NO.640/2003 IN MC.106/1994 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER:RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- C.P.MUHAMMED RAFI, S/O. BAPOOTY, AGED 44 YEARS, AYSHA MANZHIL, P.O.CHOMBALA, KUNHIPPALLY, EDACHERY, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.P.NARAYANAN, MR.M.C.RATNAKARAN. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. V.P. MUMTHAZ, D/O. AHAMMED, 33 YEARS, VANIYA PEEDKAYIL H.O., P.O. PANTHAKKAL, MAHE. 2. MUHAMMED RASHEED (MINOR 14 YEARS), S/O. AHAMMED, VANIYA PEEDKAYIL H.O., P.O. PANTHAKKAL, MAHE. 3. RUKSANA (MINOR 12 YEARS) MINORS REP. BY MOTHER VANIYA PEEDKAYIL H.O., P.O.PANTHAKKAL, MAHE. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.CIBI THOMAS THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.11146/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.441/2007 DISMISSED 09/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.441 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in C.M.P.No.640/2003 in M.C.No.106/1994. The family court by its order enhanced the maintenance amount of the wife from Rs.225/= to Rs.1500/= and that of the children from Rs.200/= to Rs.1,500/=. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. The learned counsel argued for an adjournment but I was disinclined to grant the same for the reason that matters are put in the 800 list and are gradually transferred to 500 list, so that sufficient time is given for informing the parties. The attitude of the revision petitioner is also relevant in this case. When the wife and children moved for enhancement of the maintenance, the husband does not appear before the court and tendered any evidence in support of the contention. Very filing of an objection is not a substitute for evidence. Admittedly, at one point of time the husband was employed in gulf country. It has also to be : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.441 OF 2007 stated that though he raises a contention of epilepsy, not even a scrap of paper is produced to show that he is having any epileptic complaint. The order of the family court was passed as early as on 25th day of April 1994 and the enhancement is granted only from 7.3.2005. So the enhanced order of maintenance has taken place only 11 years after the issuance of the first. It may be possible for any parties to raise contentions and keep away from the court but that shall not defeat the other party to approach the court for relief. Therefore I considered the matter on merit and held that the wife and children are entitled to get the enhanced maintenance. 3. What shall be the quantum is the next question. Precisely there is no specific material to fix the income of the husband. The husband has not chosen to produce any materials to show that he has come back from gulf and that he is suffering from any ailment. Therefore he must be considered to be a man of reasonable income and the amount has to be enhanced accordingly. I feel justice can be met in this case by ordering the husband to pay enhanced : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.441 OF 2007 maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/= to the wife and Rs.1,000/= each to the children. Needless to say that the children will cease to have the benefit of maintenance the moment they attain majority. 4. Therefore the revision is disposed of by fixing the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.1,200/= to the wife and that of the children till they attain the age of majority at Rs.1,000/= each and this revised amount is liable to be paid from 7.3.2005. If any amount is deposited or paid that shall be given credit to and the balance need alone be paid. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.441 OF 2007