IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 93 of 2004(D)
1. SUBAIDA, D/O.KASI KUNJU,
... Petitioner
2. HAFIS, (MINOR), NEELI VEETTIL,
3. HARIS, (MINOR), NEELIVEETTIL,
4. AFSAL, (MINOR), NEELI VEETTIL,
Vs
1. T.K.ABDULLA, S/O.KOCHUNNI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :23/11/2009
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
----------------------------------------
R.P.(F.C).No.93 of 2004
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009
ORDER
The revision petitioners are the petitioners in C.M.P.No.75
of 2003 filed in M.C.No.145 of 2000 on the file of the Family
Court, Kollam. The first revision petitioner is the wife of the
respondent and other revision petitioners are children born to
the respondent in matrimony. The parties fell apart and the
revision petitioners are residing separate. The revision
petitioners preferred the petition M.C.No.145 of 2000 seeking an
order for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Pending that petition, the matter was settled
between the parties and in pursuance of the compromise arrived
by order dated 23/3/2001 in M.C.No.145 of 2000 the respondent
was ordered to pay Rs.450/- each to the second and third
petitioners and at the rate of Rs.400/- to the fourth petitioner per
month. Thereafter, the revision petitioners preferred the above
petition C.M.P.No.75 of 2003 under Section 127 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking an order to enhance the
maintenance amount to Rs.2,500/- each per month.
2. Respondent remained exparte. The revision
R.P.(F.C).No.93 of 2004
2
petitioners filed an affidavit in support of the averments in the
petition. The lower court by the order impugned dated
3/10/2003 allowed the petition whereby the maintenance
awarded in M.C.No.145 of 2000 was enhanced to at the rate of
Rs.650/- each per month to the revision petitioners 2 and 3 and
at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to the 4th revision petitioner.
Assailing the inadequacy of the amount awarded, this revision
petition was filed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondent
and perusing the records it is seen that though it is stated that
the revision petitioners 2 and 3 are studying in plus two and the
4th respondent in High School, it is no where mentioned that they
had to pay any fees for their studies. There is also no mention as
to whether the revision petitioners had to meet any expenditure
for travel towards the school. Such being the materials on
record, there is lack of evidence regarding the expenditure for
studies. However, the learned counsel for the respondent
agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for meeting the educational
expenses. In the light of the above submission, I find no reason
to interfere with the order impugned. The revision petition is
R.P.(F.C).No.93 of 2004
3
devoid of merits.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. The offer
of the respondents to pay Rs.50,000/- in lump to meet the
educational expenses of the revision petitioners 2 to 4 is
recorded. There would be no order as to costs.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
skj