IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 42 of 2005()
1. P.MOOSA, S/O. ALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RASIA, D/O. NJARAKKODAN MOIDEEN,
... Respondent
2. SALMAN, S/O. P.MOOSA,
3. JAMSHEER, S/O. P.MOOSA,
4. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.ANTONY
For Respondent :SRI.P.R.SREEJITH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :08/03/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 42 OF 2005
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the Family
Court, Kozhikode in CMP 864/03 in M.C.421/00. The Family
Court enhanced maintenance to the children from Rs.200/- to
Rs.1,000/- each and it is against that decision the husband
has come up in revision.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner. The original order was passed on the basis of an
endorsement made by the parties, i.e. Rs.400/- to the wife
and Rs.200/- each to the children. It was passed on
16.7.2001. Now the present M.C. is filed within a period of 22
months claiming enhanced maintenance at the rate of
Rs.1,500/-. It has to be remembered that change of
circumstances is certainly a ground for variation of the order
of maintenance. The maintenance as per the agreement
between the parties was fixed at Rs.200/- just 22 months prior
to the filing of the petition. The first child was aged about 5
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 42 OF 2005
-:2:-
years and the 2nd child was aged about 2 years at the time of
the filing of the application. Now the first child is seven years
and the second child is 4 years. The learned Family Court
judge without looking into the various aspects had increased
the maintenance to Rs.1,000/- each. There were documents
evidencing transfer of the property as well as ownership of the
property. Exts.A1 to A2(d) would reveal that all those
transactions had taken place prior to 16.7.01 ie., prior to the
passing of the first order in the M.C. Only there was one
transaction which had taken place on 27.7.2001, i.e.
immediately after the agreement between the parties. Now
the attempt of the Family Court to ignore those transactions
in order to defeat the interest of the minors in granting
maintenance cannot be said to be correct in the light of the
fact those transactions had taken place prior to the agreement
between the parties whereby Rs.200/- is agreed to be paid as
maintenance to the children. The Family Court should not
have enhanced the maintenance so much without reason.
Now even if 100% increase is granted per year the maximum
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 42 OF 2005
-:3:-
entitlement would be 200% when it reaches July 2003. But
the application is filed on 27.5.03. Therefore taking into
consideration the most liberal view I feel the maximum
increase at this stage the Court can order was Rs.400/- and
not Rs.1,000/-. Therefore I modify the order of the Family
Court and fix the maintenance at Rs.600/- per month and it
shall take effect from 24th September, 2004.
R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-