The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.62/2013 on the files of the Family Court, Thalassery, which was filed under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The respondents are his wife and son. Earlier, in M.C.191/03, the revision petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.500/- each to the respondents per month.
2. In this petition, it is the case of the respondents that now the said amount is insufficient for the maintenance of the respondents. The 2nd respondent is a student aged 8 years studying in the CBSE class. The living expenses such as educational, medical etc. are substantially increased. Therefore, they are unable to maintain with the amount which is being received by them pursuant to the earlier order in M.C.No.191/2003. They claim ₹10,000/- each per month.
3. The revision petitioner filed a counter statement denying the claim for enhanced maintenance allowance raised by the respondents. He would state that the 1st respondent is having income as she is doing coolie work and she is having landed properties also. But he admitted that he is a helper to mason. He is not having any regular job. He is getting a nominal amount only. So also, he is suffering from abdominal disease. Therefore, he is unable to pay enhanced maintenance allowance as prayed for by the respondents herein.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments challenging the findings of the court below by which the revision petitioner was directed to pay enhanced maintenance allowance. The learned counsel submits that the court below has failed to consider the physical disability of the revision petitioner, when he is suffering from abdominal disease. He is not having any regular job and he is working as a helper only. In short, the court below has not considered the evidence on record in its correct perspective.
5. The question to be considered is, whether there is any illegality or impropriety in directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents at the rates specified above?
6. Admittedly, in M.C.No.191/2003, he was directed to pay maintenance allowance @ ₹500/- each per month. One decade had been elapsed after the passing of the said order. Though the revision petitioner contended that he is physically incapable to do work due to his abdominal disease, no evidence either oral or documentary had been adduced to substantiate his physical disability to do work so as to earn for the livelihood of his family. At the same time, he admitted that he is a manual labourer working as helper to mason work. He claimed that he is getting only ₹6,000/- per month. As rightly held by the court below, it is a matter of common knowledge that now a days, a manual labourer can earn not less than ₹15,000/- per month by doing coolie work. Inflation of money value, escalation in living index and consequential price hike of essential commodities are factors which do not require evidence, as the same are universal phenomena. In the absence of any evidence to show the reduction in the income of the revision petitioner, he is liable to pay enhanced maintenance allowance to his wife and child. The 2nd respondent is aged 8 and he is a student in a CBSE school.
7. Having regard to the present living costs and admitted income of the revision petitioner, I find that the quantum of enhanced maintenance determined by the court below is just and proper and do not require any interference under revisional jurisdiction.
The RPFC is dismissed accordingly.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge K.HARILAL, JUDGE.