Balakrishnan vs Usha

K. Harilal, J.—The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C. No. 195/2009 on the files of Family Court, Palakkad. The above petition was filed under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance granted earlier to the 2nd respondent herein, who is the son born to the revision petitioner in his extra marital relationship with the 1st respondent.

According to the respondents the 2nd respondent is the son of the revision petitioner so, the revision petitioner is legally liable to pay maintenance allowance to him and the same was accepted in the earlier M.C. No. 88/1997 and the revision petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month to the 2nd respondent. But, the said order was passed in the year 1999 and the said amount is not sufficient to meet the present living and educational expenses of the 2nd respondent; whereas presently the revision petitioner is getting a monthly income of Rs. 8,000/- apart from his income from properties. The 2nd respondent claimed an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month.

The revision petitioner herein contended that he is working as a security guard and getting a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- only and he is not in possession of any immovable assets. He denied the allegation that the maintenance amount which is being received by the 2nd respondent is not sufficient to meet their needs.

After considering the evidence on record the court below enhanced the maintenance allowance to Rs. 2,000/- per month. This enhancement is challenged in this revision petition.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments challenging the enhancement of maintenance allowance. According to him the enhancement is disproportionate with Exhibits D1 and D4 which evidently shows that now the revision petitioner is getting only Rs. 3,000/- per month. Similarly, the court below has not considered the income of the 1st respondent, which is being received as labourer under the National Rural Labour Guaranteed Programme.

In view of the submissions at the Bar, the question that arises for consideration is whether the court below can be justified in enhancing the quantum of maintenance allowance to Rs. 2,000/- per month.

Going by the impugned Order it could be seen that the above petition was filed alleging change of circumstances, increased living cost and other circumstances. According to the respondents there is considerable escalation in educational expenses and cost of living expenses, than at the time of passing the earlier maintenance order. Inflation of money value and consequential escalation in living index and hike in the price of essential commodities are universal phenomena which do not require proof. The earlier Order was passed in the year 1999. By the passage of one decade, indisputably, there is a considerable increase in the living cost. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the findings of the court below that the 2nd respondent is entitled to get enhanced maintenance allowance.

Coming to the quantum of maintenance allowance, I am of the opinion that the revision petitioner cannot seek exemption under Exhibits D1 and D4. He has no case that he is physically disabled or his earning capacity has been reduced after passing of the earlier order. I am of the opinion that there is a corresponding increase in the income of employees with the escalation of living index. If that be so, I am not inclined to confine enhancement of maintenance allowance to Exhibits D1 and D4. Certainly, being a father, the revision petitioner has liability to maintain his son by providing adequate maintenance allowance to meet his day-to-day living expenses and more particularly his educational expenses. So long as he is healthy and able-bodied man, it is for him to find out adequate income so as to give maintenance to his son.

Having regard to the evidence available on record and also taking judicial notice of the escalation in living index and hike of price in essential commodities, I find that the enhanced maintenance allowance fixed by the court below is just and proper and there is no reason to interfere with the said findings.

Consequently, this Revision Petition will stand dismissed.