IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 RPFC.No. 48 of 2009() ------------------------------ MC.110/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ K.A. SAGEER, S/O.K.S. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOPPLY HOUSE, ARANGATH CROSS ROAD, PULLEPPADI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.N.S.NAJEEB MR.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------- 1. RAJEENA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL RAHIM, DOOR NO.25/20, KOZHIKKARA THERUVU, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, SHORNUR ROAD, PALAKKAD. 2. SIFA, AGED 12 YEARS, MINOR, D/O.RAJEENA, DOOR NO.25/20, KOZHIKKARA THERUVU, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, SHORNUR ROAD, PALAKKAD. (REPRESNTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN, THE 1ST RESPONDENT) R1 BY ADV. MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C.NO.48 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 ORDER Respondents are the wife and daughter of the petitioner. As per order dated 8.11.2002 in M.C.No.6/2000 Family Court, Palakkad directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.500/- and Rs.400/- respectively, per month. In the year, 2007 respondents preferred an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of the monthly allowance. That application was resisted by the petitioner claiming that his monthly income has not increased. Court below as per the impugned order, rejected that contention and enhanced the allowance to Rs.1,000/- each. That order is under challenge in this revision. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is no evidence to show that petitioner has any permanent job or income or that there was any increase in his income. According to the learned counsel for respondents, there is no reason to R.P.F.C.No.48/2009 2 interfere with the order under challenge. 3. Evidence on record as admitted by petitioner is that he is engaged in repairing of Air Conditioners and other electronic equipments. According to him, he is not running any shop as claimed by respondents, he repairs Air Conditioners and such other equipments as per orders placed by his customers over telephone. Maintenance was allowed originally as per order dated 8.11.2002 at a time when respondent No.2 was aged only 3 ½ years. After seven years when respondent No.1 was aged 27 years and respondent No.2 was aged 10 years and studying in the 7th standard, they sought enhancement. Even in the absence of any specific evidence as to any increase in the income of the petitioner, it is only reasonable to think that during the last 5 years, his income has increased, the cost of living has increased, the amount enhanced, taking into account of the age of the respondents and their basic necessities and the necessity to educate respondent No.2 cannot be said to be exorbitant. Even a manual labourer in this part of the country could earn anything not less than Rs.200/- per day. Petitioner is able bodies and is capable of earning. Certainly the charges for R.P.F.C.No.48/2009 3 repair of Air Conditioner and such other equipments that the petitioner now takes is much higher than what he got five years back. There is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd