IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 38 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 1755/04 IN MC.370/2000 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- MEENATH MEETHAL MAJEED, S/O.KUNHAMBU, PUTHUR AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. M.SAREENA, D/O.KUNJAMMED, MANAPPURAM VAYALIL, IRINGAL AMSOM, MOORAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 2. FARSANA (MINOR), MANAPPURAM VAYALIL, IRINGAL AMSOM, MOORAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 3. FARHATH (MINOR), MANAPPURAM VAYALIL, IRINGAL AMSOM, MOORAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 38 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner has suffered am order under Section 127 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay an enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- p.m. each to his two minor children. The mother of the minor children has already been divorced. The children are now grown up school going children. Maintenance was awarded at the rate of Rs.250/- p.m. in 2001 as per proceedings initiated in 2000. In 2004 the petitioners claimed enhanced maintenance. That petition was disposed of long later by the impugned order on 30.10.2008, enhancing the amount to Rs.750/- p.m. only from the date of the order i.e. 30.10.2008. 2. Enhancement of maintenance was claimed on the ground of passage of time, increase in the cost of living and the inevitable increase in the income of the petitioner, which must have taken place. On the side of the claimants their mother tendered evidence as PW1. On the side of the petitioner, he R.P.F.C.No. 38 of 2009 2 tendered evidence as RW1. His brother tendered evidence as RW2 and a doctor, who was allegedly attending on him, a Psychiatrist, tendered evidence as RW3. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of certain admitted circumstances. The petitioner was earlier employed abroad for a long period of time. He holds a valid driving licence to drive an autorikshaw. He was admittedly employed as an autorikshaw driver earlier. A period of about 8 years had elapsed from the date of initiation of the earlier proceedings when the impugned order was passed. The children had become older by eight years. They were school going children. Increase in the cost of living was also rightly taken note of by the learned Judge of the Family Court. 4. According to the petitioner he is mentally ill. He is hence unable to work. This is the ground on which the claim for enhanced maintenance was resisted. The self serving evidence of RWs. 1 and 2 cannot convincingly show that the petitioner is suffering from any such mental illness as to disable him from working and earning his livelihood. Nothing is offered in explanation as to what has happened to his earnings from his employment for a long period of R.P.F.C.No. 38 of 2009 3 time abroad. The petitioner admittedly was instructing his counsel himself. The evidence of RW3 does not at all show that the petitioner is unable to work. 5. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account and alertly reminding myself of the nature, quality and contours of revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction, I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order suffers from any such vice as to justify or warrant invocation of such jurisdiction. The maintenance now ordered to the children is only Rs.750/- p.m. Such enhanced maintenance has been awarded only from the date of the order i.e. 30.10.2008, eventhough the claim for enhancement was filed as earl;y as in 2004. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order warrants interference at the instance of the petitioner. 6. This R.P.F.C. is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm