IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 102 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.94/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 4.12.2008 .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. JASMINE, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED HANEEF,W/O.IBRAHIM,RESIDING AT PATTANITHERUVU, NOORNI, PALAKKAD. 2. MUHAMMED RASHWAN, AGED 15(MINOR) S/O.JASMINE, -DO- -DO- 3. RAFNA, AGED 12 YEARS(MINOR), D/O.JASMINE, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------- IBRAHIM, S/O.SAYID MUHAMMED RAVUTHAR, RESIDING AT BISMILLA VEEDU, YAKKARA, PALAKKAD TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.(FC).NO.102 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed against the order of maintenance passed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M.C.No.94/2008 on the file of Family Court, Palakkad. The Family Court enhanced the maintenance of the mother and two children by Rs.50/- each. Cogent reasons are given. It is the case of the wife that the husband is having two autorickshaws and that he is running a hotel business and lastly he is working as a part-time conductor. The Family court found that even the ownership of the autorickshaws is only hearsay and that she had not even seen the autorickshaws. If a person is possessing an autorickshaw, there will be valid documents available to establish the same. Similarly, if a person is running a hotel industry, there will be licence atleast in his name. So, I cannot find fault in the Family Court for not accepting the case especially in the RP(FC).102/2009 2 backdrop that even the evidence of PW1 is hearsay. It is a settled position of law that hearsay evidence is the worst form of evidence which cannot be looked into by any Court of law. The only question is regarding whether he is a conductor or not, even the petitioner has got a case that he is a part-time conductor and a part-time conductor means that he will not have job on all days. In spite of that, the Family court took the income of Rs.300/- and worked out the enhanced portion by Rs.50/- each. From the materials available, I find that that was the only possible thing which the Court should have done properly. The order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, and therefore, this R.P. is dismissed. If situation improves, nothing will stand in the way of the wife and children moving for enhancement again under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE prp RP(FC).102/2009 3 J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 6th November, 2008