IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 371 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.540/2005 of Family Court, Alappuzha .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ DHARAMSHI BHAGAWANDAS VED, AGED 64 YEARS 164,DR.VIEGRA STREET, 1ST FLOOR, KALBADEVI ROAD, BOMBAY 400 002. BY ADV. SRIR.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ 1. HAMSARAJ DHARMASESY SAMPAT, AGED 85 YEARS,VARKATHU PANDAKASALA, EAST OF LIGHT HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. JAYASREE DHARAMSHI, AGED 55 YEARS -DO- -DO- -DO- THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.371 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C directing him to pay enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensum to the claimant, admittedly his wife. The claimant/wife has come to this court through her father/guardian as she is admittedly suffering from mental unsoundness. The claimant had approached the learned Magistrate earlier and in M.C.No.11/90 as per order dated 7/1/1993 the claimant was awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensum. Long earlier, in 2005, the claimant through her father approached the Family Court seeking enhancement of maintenance. A period of 1 ½ decades had elapsed from the date of the earlier order. On behalf of the claimant, it was asserted that the cost of living has increased and cost of medicines has gone up. The parents of the claimant were becoming too old. They did not have the physical capacity to look after the claimant. The claimant, a mentally unsound person, needs a bye stander constantly to look after R.P.F.C.No.371/08 2 her. There were two children born in the wedlock. They have also attained majority. The petitioner herein was allegedly employed as a Manager of a business firm in Mumbai and it was asserted that he is getting a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- in addition to his income from landed property. The father of the claimant was examined as PW1. He filed a chief affidavit. He was not cross-examined. The respondent did not adduce any evidence. 2. It is in this context that the learned Judge of the Family Court took the view that it would be reasonable to award an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensum as enhanced monthly maintenance. The learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order in these circumstances. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Azad argues that the quantum of enhanced maintenance fixed by the learned Judge is grossly excessive and perversely disproportionate to the means of the petitioner. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court sitting as a court of revision exercising the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. R.P.F.C.No.371/08 3 Unless the findings of facts are totally erroneous or perverse and not justified by the materials on record and such vice in turn leads to miscarriage of justice, a court of revision must be slow to invoke its revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The claimant/wife is aged more than 50 years. Evidence shows that she is mentally unsound and needs medicines and a bye stander to just exist in addition to food, clothing, shelter etc. An amount of Rs.300/- was fixed about 1 ½ decades back. At the time when the amount was fixed, the respondent evidently had the burden to look after his minor children who have by now attained majority. The claimant had parents to look after her also. But with passage of time, they have become old and incapable of looking after the claimant and therefore there is need for a permanent bye stander. The petitioner, it was asserted, was well employed and gets a salary of Rs.15,000/- per mensum. No contra evidence has been adduced. No cross-examination of the claimant's witness was undertaken and in these circumstances I am unable to agree that the quantum fixed by the court below is not justified. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the quantum of R.P.F.C.No.371/08 4 maintenance fixed by the court below does not justify or warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that an opportunity may be given to the respondent to properly contest the proceedings by adducing evidence on his side. No satisfactory explanation is offered as to why the witness is not cross-examined at the earlier stage and why evidence on the side of the petitioner was not adduced earlier. Remand cannot be claimed as a matter of indulgence from this court. Satisfactory reasons must be shown as to why and under what circumstances the petitioner was disabled from adducing proper evidence to justify the claim for the luxury of a further opportunity to adduce further evidence after remand. I find no reason to justify the prayer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that though the petition for enhancement was filed on 31/10/2005, the impugned order was passed only on 22/7/2006. The order granting maintenance has been directed to take effect from the date of the petition. It is prayed that this direction may R.P.F.C.No.371/08 5 be set aside and direction may be issued to make payment of enhanced maintenance from the date of the order. 6. The court under Section 125 Cr.P.C has a discretion to award maintenance/enhanced maintenance from the date of the petition or the date of the order. In the instant case, the court below has opted to exercise the discretion with effect from the date of the petition. I am unable to agree that the said discretion suffers from any vice to warrant interference. 6. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.371/08 6 R.P.F.C.No.371/08 7 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008