Kerala High Court
T.Noorjahan vs Saithalavi on 23 March, 2015
Author: P. Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
TUESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/22ND POUSHA, 1937
RPFC.No. 371 of 2015 ()
------------------------
MC 142/2012 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
============
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN MC:
--------------------------------------------------------------
T.NOORJAHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.LATE KUTTY AHAMMED
RESIDING AT THANDUPURAKKAL HOUSE
KARUNALAYAPADI, WANDUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT IN MC:
-------------------------------------------------------
1. SAITHALAVI, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.KUNHALAN, CHATHAKUNNU, MANJERI POST
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
2. AJMAL, S/O.SAITHALAVI, RESIDING AT THANDUPURAKKAL HOUSE
KARUNALAYAPDI, WANDUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-01-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.(FC)NO. 371/2015
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED in the NAME OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 23.03.2015
ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 DATED 13.02.2012
ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT MALAPPURAM
IN M.C.No.142/2012 DATED 31.08.2015
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
// TRUE COPY // P.A.TO JUDGE
SD
P. UBAID, J.
---------------------------------------
R.P.(F.C.)No.371 of 2015
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner herein and her child obtained a maintenance order against the 1st respondent herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C. From the Family Court, Malappuram, in 2005. The Family Court ordered Rs.500/- per month to the petitioner and Rs.450/- per month to the child, in M.C.No.23/2005. In 2012 she brought an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. as M.C.No.142/2012 claiming enhancement on the ground of change in circumstances. The 1st respondent entered appearance and contested the proceeding on the ground that there has not been any change or enhancement in his income. After hearing both sides, the learned Family Court Judge allowed M.C.No.142/2012 in part on 31.08.2015, enhancing the amount of maintenance to Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing the petition, and disallowing the claim of the child. She is not satisfied.
2. The 1st respondent herein received notice in this proceeding, but he opted to remain absent. The 2nd respondent R.P.(F.C.)No.371 of 2015 2 is the son whose claim for enhancement stands disallowed.
3. On hearing the learned counsel and on a perusal of the impugned order, I find that the orders passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court requires modification by this Court in revision. The petitioner is now aged 42 years, and the age of the respondent shown in the petition is 46 years. Order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was passed by the trial court long back in 2005. The petitioner's claim for enhancement came after seven years, in 2012. What she claims is Rs.5,000/- per month in the changed circumstances. There is no doubt or dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner's needs and necessities have considerably increased. We are now in 2015. It is common experience that the cost of living has always been on the increase. There is nothing to show that there has not been any increase in the income of the respondent. On the other hand there are materials to show that there has been considerable increase in the cost of living. Change in social circumstances including cost of living will have to be considered by the court in fixing the quantum of maintenance. It has come out in evidence R.P.(F.C.)No.371 of 2015 3 that the petitioner has been residing in a rented house, and she has to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as rent. The child has now become major. He does not require maintenance from the father now. On a consideration of all relevant aspects including the change in circumstances, and also the needs and necessities of the petitioner, I find that an amount of Rs.2,500/- will be the proper and adequate amount of maintenance subject to further enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C., as and when needs and necessities increase.
In the result, this revision is allowed, modifying the impugned order of the trial court, that the amount of maintenance payable to the petitioner by the respondent shall be Rs.2,500/- per month, payable from the date of filing of M.C.No.142/2012.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge