Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.334 of 2013 on the files of the Family Court, Kannur, filed by the respondents herein, who are the divorced wife and daughter of the revision petitioner, claiming enhanced maintenance allowance for the 2nd respondent under Sec.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The above M.C. was filed stating that, in the earlier M.C.No.43 of 2006, the revision petitioner was directed to pay `800/- per month to the 1st respondent and `400/- per month to the 2nd respondent, as maintenance allowance. Thereafter,  the matter was settled between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent and their marriage was dissolved and the revision petitioner has paid an amount of `1,50,000/- towards the past, future and arrear of monthly maintenance pertaining to the 1st respondent. He has also agreed to pay `200/- per month to the 2nd respondent as monthly maintenance and in view of the above settlement, M.C. No.320 of 2008 was filed by the respondents under Sec.127 of the Cr.P.C. and got the order passed in favour of the 1st respondent cancelled and modified the quantum of maintenance allowance in respect of the 2nd respondent as monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of `200/-. At the time of filing the earlier petition, the 2nd respondent was studying in the 2nd Standard. Now she is studying in the 5th Standard at Naduvil School. According to the 2nd respondent, the amount, which is being received as monthly maintenance, is inadequate and insufficient to meet the present  requirements of the 2nd respondent and the same is disproportionate with the increase in the income of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is a rubber tapper and he is getting `1,000/- per day as income from his employment. In addition to that, he has rubber, coconut and arecanut plantations and deriving an annual income of `3,00,000/- from the landed properties. Hence the respondents claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of `3,000/- per month.

2. The revision petitioner resisted the claim of enhancement and contended that in view of Ext.B1 settlement, the 2nd respondent is not entitled to claim enhanced maintenance allowance. He denied the allegation that he is getting `1,000/- per day and the averments that he has coconut, rubber and arecanut plantations are also false and baseless. According to him, he is a chronic patient suffering from back pain and, at present, he is not in a position to do any work.  That apart, he is having wife and two children, who are solely relying upon his income. After considering the rival pleas and evidence adduced by both parties, the court below directed the revision petitioner to pay enhanced maintenance allowance at the rate of `2,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent. The correctness of the enhanced quantum of maintenance allowance is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments assailing the findings, whereby the quantum of maintenance allowance has been increased to `2,000/- per month which is about 10 times of the quantum of amount which is being received by the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that the quantum of enhanced maintenance allowance is disproportionate with the increase in the income of the revision petitioner also. That apart, the revision petitioner is suffering from back pain and that affected his earning capacity also. But, the court below failed  to consider the above aspect in its correct perspective.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent advanced arguments to justify the findings, whereby the court below enhanced the quantum of maintenance allowance.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is, whether the enhancement in the quantum of maintenance allowance is justifiable and proportionate with the increase in the income of the revision petitioner. In the earlier M.C., the revision petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of `400/- to the 2nd respondent and subsequently, it was modified to `200/- per month in M.C.No.320 of 2008 on the basis of the agreement entered into between the 1st respondent and the revision petitioner. It is pertinent to note that such an agreement was entered when the 2nd respondent was  a minor, and I find that an agreement entered into between the 1st respondent and the revision petitioner, when the 2nd respondent was a minor, reducing the quantum of maintenance of the 2nd respondent to a meagre amount of `200/-, is illegal void ab initio. The above view is supported by the decision of this Court in Rajesh R. Nair v. Meera Babu [2014 (1) KHC 83]. In short, Ext.B1 is of no consequence at all and the same cannot be taken as a basis for the enhancement.