IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.No. 177 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.195/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- P.P.SUKUMARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN CHOORIKADAN, RESIDING AT THADIYANKOVVAL, UNDINOOR VILLAGE, HOSDRUG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. T.V.SUMATHI, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.P.P.SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT ORIE, PADNA VILLAGE HOSDRUG TALUK. 2. SHIBU, AGED 16 YEARS, S/O.T.V.SUMATHI, RESIDING AT ORIE, PADNA VILLAGE, HSDRUG TALUK. REP.BY HIS MOTHER T.V.SUMATHI. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.177 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Order under challenge is one under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) enhancing the maintenance allowance granted to the respondents. As per order dated 11.7.2000, respondent No.1 was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month and respondent No.2 was awarded Rs.300/- per month. Later, at a time when they were aged 32 and 7 years respectively, as per order dated 24.9.2005 maintenance was enhanced to Rs.600/- and 450/- respectively, per month. As per impugned order dated 27.2.2009 that has been enhanced to Rs.1,200/- and Rs.900/- respectively, per month. Challenge is to that enhancement. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is a coolie and that there is no evidence of any enhanced income for him. 3. Respondent No.1 as on the date of the application for enhancement of maintenance was aged 38 years and respondent No.2 was aged 10 years. According to them, petitioner is engaged in plying autorickshaw. Petitioner would say that he is only a manual labour. Assuming so one cannot forget that the labour charges in this State is increasing every time. The normal wages for a manual labourer in this part of the country is anything not less than R.P.(FC)No.177 of 2009 2 Rs.200/- per day. Petitioner is an able bodied man and hence must be presumed to be capable of earning. Therefore, an evidence regarding the present income of the petitioner is not required. The amount of maintenance awarded to the respondents must take in expenses for food, cloth, medicine, shelter and other basic needs. Respondent No.2 has to be educated. Court below has taken into account these aspects and enhanced the maintenance allowance. I am not persuaded to think that the amount awarded is excessive or beyond the reach of the petitioner. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order under challenge requiring interference in revision. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Crl.M.A.No.4924 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks