IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 415 of 2007()
1. P.G. RAJENDRAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LEELA R. PILLAI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :03/03/2010
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN,J.
======================
R.P.(F.C) No.415 OF 2007
======================
Dated this the 3rd day of March 2010.
JUDGMENT
This revision is preferred against the order of the
Family Court Thiruvalla in M.C.No. 366/06. It was an
application filed by the wife for enhancement of the
maintenance. The court below had ordered maintenance at
the rate of Rs.350/- on 24.6.02. It is to enhance that
amount the petition is filed. The Court, after considering
the materials, granted enhanced maintenance at the rate
of Rs.900/- It is against that decision the present revision is
preferred.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as the respondent. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner would contend that the court below has arbitrarily
enhanced the maintenance. He would submit that the the
wife is a person who is having income and also
employment but the court below did not accept those
R.P.(F.C) No.415 OF 2007 2
contentions. It is true that it has come out in evidence that
she is having 14 cents of property. The Court did not
accept the contention that there are rubber trees in the said
property. The court below held that there may be about
6 or 8 coconut trees in the property. On the other hand as
far as the husband is concerned he is employed in security
personnel in the State Bank of Travancore having basic pay
of Rs.4,935/- and he is also deriving pension. So his
income would be somewhere near Rs.7,000/- per month.
Though it is contended that his mother is a cancer patient,
nothing is produced to established the same. 7 years had
elapsed now. Considering the present escalation of price
and the huge increase in the cost of living, Rs.900/- cannot
be considered as an unreasonable or excessive amount.
Therefore I do not find any perversity or illegality in the
order passed by the Family Court. Therefore the revision
lacks merits and dismissed.
M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE.
mns