IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 RPFC.No. 51 of 2009() --------------------- MC.295/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT (S): -------------------- ABOOBACKER,S/O.PATHUMMA, MAKKINYANTE VALAPPIL,KAPPUR AMSOM,DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK,KAPPUR P.O, CHALISSERY (VIA) PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BEEPATHUTTI,W/O.ABOOBACKER, MAKKINYANTE VALAPPIL, KAPPURA AMSOM,DESOM,OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. JASEEN,S/O.BEEPATHUTTI,REP.BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER BEEPATHUTTI,W/O.ABOOBACKER, MAKKINTANTE VALAPPIL,KAPPURA P.O, CHALISSERY (VIA),PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R1 SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN FOR R1 SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. FOR R1 SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19 10/2009 / THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ----------------------------- R.P (FC) NO. 51 OF 2009 -------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 ORDER -------- The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No. 295 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The respondent are the petitioners 1 and 3 before the lower court. Respondents are the wife and son of the revision petitioner. They along with the daughter of the revision petitioner earlier obtained an order under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per the order in M.C No. 50 of 1999, whereby the revision petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each from 22-10-2002. While so, on 16-8-2007 the respondents 1 and 3 along with the daughter filed criminal M.C 295 of 2007 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order to enhance the maintenance awarded in M.C No. 50 of 1999 to Rs. 3,000/- to the first respondent herein and at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- each to the 2nd respondent and the daughter. It is with a plea that ever since the order in M.C No. 50 of 1999 the cost of living had R.P (FC) NO. 51 OF 2009 2 increased and the revision petitioner is a business man, Land lord , running a flour mill, had landed property and bank balance and that his monthly income is at Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The revision petitioner in his objection stated that there is no increase in the cost of living. The 2nd petitioner(daughter) had attained majority. There is no increase in the income. He has no business, no flour mill or any bank balance and he is aged 63 years and was ailing and has to undergo a surgery. But he postponed the surgery because of lack of funds. 3. The first respondent was examined as PW1. Revision petitioner was examined as RW1. 4. The lower court on appraisal of the evidence arrived a finding that there is increase in the requirement of the respondents. Since the daughter, the 2nd petitioner had attained majority she is not entitled to get maintenance. Whereas the respondents 1 and 2 who are petitioners 1 and 3 before the lower court are entitled to get the amount at enhanced rate sought for. Accordingly the R.P (FC) NO. 51 OF 2009 3 petition was allowed enhancing the maintenance to the respondents at Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- respectively. 5. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order enhancing the maintenance this revision petition was filed. 6. Both sides were heard. The order impugned was perused. As regards the income and requirement of the revision petitioner and respondents there is oath against oath. Thought it is alleged that revision petitioner has got business, flour mill, landed property, bank balance etc.. there is no bit of document in proof of such contentions. It is not disputed that revision petitioner is a senior citizen. There is no case that he is doing any manual labour. There is no proof regarding the income from the landed property or from the business. But, it is a matter of common knowledge that the requirement of the respondents and value of the essential commodities had gone up. In the above circumstance, I find that the revision petitioner is liable to meet the minimum requirement R.P (FC) NO. 51 OF 2009 4 of the respondents. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances including the fact that respondents are residing together, it appears that the quantum determined by the trial court is on a higher side and is beyond the means of the revision petitioner. I find that maintenance to respondents 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs. 1800/- and Rs. 1,200/- respectively per month would be just and appropriate and the said amount would be within the means of the revision petitioner. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. In partial modification of the order impugned, the maintenance granted to the respondents are reduced to Rs. 1,800/- and Rs.1,200/-respectively per month. P.S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE PKK