Asha Mathew vs Jom Cherian

P. Ubaid, J.—The second revision petitioner herein is the minor daughter of the respondent. She is represented by her mother, the first revision petitioner. The second revision petitioner had obtained a maintenance order against her father in M.C No. 225/2006, in the year 2007. Rs 600/- per month was granted to her as maintenance. In 2010 the child, through her mother filed CMP No. 900/2010 u/s 127 Cr.PC claiming enhancement to Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month. The respondent entered appearance and resisted the claim on the contention that so much amount is not required for the expense of the child, and that he is not in a position to give that much.

The trial court (Family court, Kottarakkara) conducted an enquiry in the matter and recorded evidence. The father of the first revision petitioner was examined in the trial court as PW1 to substantiate the claim for enhancement in changed circumstances. The respondent herein did not turn up to adduce any evidence. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the child requires more amount for her needs and necessities, and accordingly enhanced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 1,650 (Rupees One thousand six hundred and fifty only) as per the order dated 30.03.2013. The child is not satisfied with the said amount, and so she has come up in revision through the mother.

In spite of notice, the respondent remained absent in this proceedings. I heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the case records. It is submitted that the child is now aged 11 years, studying in the IVth standard in a good school. The learned Counsel submits that the child requires reasonable enhancement to meet her needs and necessities in the present social circumstances where cost of living is always on the increase. Of course, it is true that the respondent herein did not turn up to adduce any evidence in the trial court. However the trial court fixed the amount on a consideration of the various aspects, including the circumstances explained by her grandfather, examined as PW1.

Everybody knows the needs and necessities of a child studying in the IVth standard in an English medium school. Maintenance was awarded by the trial court initially in 2007, and now we are in 2014. On a consideration of the various aspects including the present day cost of living and also the needs and necessities of the child including the education expenses. I feel that Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month could be reasonably granted as maintenance to the child, and to this extent there can be a modification in the impugned order of the trial court. I find that no prejudice or hardship will be caused to the respondent, and I feel that he would be happy to pay that much amount to his own daughter who requires more in the changed social and economic circumstances.

In the result this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the trial court will stand modified to the effect that the amount of maintenance payable by the respondent to the second revision petitioner shall be Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month, payable from the date of filing of CMP 900/2010 in the trial court.