IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 RPFC.No. 93 of 2004(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/10/2003 IN CMP 75/2003 IN MC.145/2000 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SUBAIDA, D/O.KASI KUNJU, NEELI VEETTIL, KUREEPUZHA, MANALIL WEST, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM. 2. HAFIS, (MINOR), NEELI VEETTIL, KUREEPUZHA, MANALIL WEST, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM. 3. HARIS, (MINOR), NEELIVEETTIL, KUREEPUZHA, MANALIL WEST, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM. 4. AFSAL, (MINOR), NEELI VEETTIL, KUREEPUZHA, MANALIL WEST, KAVANAD PO., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETIIONER -------------------------------- T.K.ABDULLA, S/O.KOCHUNNI, THAIVALAPPIL VEEDU, CHEREYEI P.O., PALLIPURAM, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C).No.93 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioners are the petitioners in C.M.P.No.75 of 2003 filed in M.C.No.145 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam. The first revision petitioner is the wife of the respondent and other revision petitioners are children born to the respondent in matrimony. The parties fell apart and the revision petitioners are residing separate. The revision petitioners preferred the petition M.C.No.145 of 2000 seeking an order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pending that petition, the matter was settled between the parties and in pursuance of the compromise arrived by order dated 23/3/2001 in M.C.No.145 of 2000 the respondent was ordered to pay Rs.450/- each to the second and third petitioners and at the rate of Rs.400/- to the fourth petitioner per month. Thereafter, the revision petitioners preferred the above petition C.M.P.No.75 of 2003 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs.2,500/- each per month. 2. Respondent remained exparte. The revision R.P.(F.C).No.93 of 2004 2 petitioners filed an affidavit in support of the averments in the petition. The lower court by the order impugned dated 3/10/2003 allowed the petition whereby the maintenance awarded in M.C.No.145 of 2000 was enhanced to at the rate of Rs.650/- each per month to the revision petitioners 2 and 3 and at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to the 4th revision petitioner. Assailing the inadequacy of the amount awarded, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perusing the records it is seen that though it is stated that the revision petitioners 2 and 3 are studying in plus two and the 4th respondent in High School, it is no where mentioned that they had to pay any fees for their studies. There is also no mention as to whether the revision petitioners had to meet any expenditure for travel towards the school. Such being the materials on record, there is lack of evidence regarding the expenditure for studies. However, the learned counsel for the respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for meeting the educational expenses. In the light of the above submission, I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The revision petition is R.P.(F.C).No.93 of 2004 3 devoid of merits. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. The offer of the respondents to pay Rs.50,000/- in lump to meet the educational expenses of the revision petitioners 2 to 4 is recorded. There would be no order as to costs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj