IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 48 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2004 IN CMP 1717/03 IN MC.56/1999 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- A.DINESH BABU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, VADAKKEDATH THAZHAM NILAM, VALAYANAD AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER : --------------- -------------------- DEEPAK (MINOR), AGED 14 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER P.SREELATHA, D/O.GOPINATHAN, SREENILAYAM, NILATHALI PARAMBA, VALAYANAD AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 48 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.56/99. It was an application filed by the wife for enhancement of maintenance ordered to the minor son from Rs.350/- per month to Rs.2,000/- per month. After hearing the parties and evidence adduced the Family Court directed the maintenance to be enhanced to Rs.1,500/- from 29.10.2004. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel for both the sides. The maintenance ordered originally was passed in a case filed in 1999 fixing it at Rs.350/-. Now the son is studying in 11th standard and his expenses are high. The father would depose that though he was working in a beauty stores he had lost the job on account of the closure of the firm. In order to substantiate that contention he has produced document and R.P.(F.C.) NO. 48 OF 2005 -:2:- also had examined himself to prove the same. In spite of it the Court found that he had not examined the owner of the shop to prove the closure. I feel the approach is not correct. The person who had received the document had come and deposed before Court that the shop stands closed. Therefore it was not correct on the part of the Family Court to draw an adverse inference. But the fact remains that the revision petitioner had married again and he has got a child in that marriage as well. So it is only with the stubborn confidence of maintaining his another wife he had remarried. That does not mean he can forsake the child born in the first wife. Therefore enhancement is absolutely necessary but in the absence of concrete evidence it may not be correct to fix it at Rs.1,500/-. Considering the age of the person as well as his capacity to pay, the maintenance can be Rs.1,000/- in stead of Rs.1,500/-. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by modifying the order of the Family Court and directing the husband to pay a R.P.(F.C.) NO. 48 OF 2005 -:3:- maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the child till he attains majority and it shall be payable from 29.10.2004. If any amount is paid that shall be given credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-