ZUBIN CHERIAN Vs. DIVYA ELIZABETH K.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Family Court, Ernakulam has passed an order on 28.10.2016 in M.C. No.26/2015, which is an application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C by respondents in the revision seeking for enhancement of maintenance originally granted vide order passed by the court on 13.10.2008 in M.C.No.16/2006, granting monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,500/- each to 2 nd and 3rd petitioners. M.C No.26/2015 was filed after 9 years of passing of the order in M.C No.16/2006 and in consideration of the hike in the cost of living day by day and the increase in the expenditures of the petitioners, the Family Court was pleased to order maintenance at the rates of Rs.18,000/- to the 1 st petitioner and Rs.7,000/- each to the 2 nd and 3rd petitioners against their claim to get a modified sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.7,000/- respectively. The revision petitioner was alleged as pursuing dental profession and owning landed properties. His total monthly income was alleged as Rs.5,00,000/-.

(2.) The averments of the respondents in the M.C were denied by the revision petitioner. The status of respondents as wife and children was admitted by him. It was contended that the respondents were residing in their parental house and not in a rented house, that Rs.2,000/- is not required for payment towards electricity and water charges and Rs.8,000/-, towards accommodation charges. Respondents 2 and 3 are studying in Schools where State Syllabus is followed, which is less expensive. The 1st respondent is running 'Queen's Beauty Parlour' at Schoolpadi, near Lourdes Hospital, Pachalam and is getting Rs.50,000/- monthly. The revision petitioner has stopped his practice as a Dentist in the year 2006. He has completed LLB course but, in view of the physical disability resulted from a road traffic accident occurred on 28.12.2012, he could not pursue with the legal profession. Therefore, he is living at the expense of his mother, who was a pensioner from KSEB and being unable to earn income, he canvassed for dismissal of the petition seeking for a hike in the maintenance amount.

(3.) The parties had tendered oral evidence before the Family Court respectively as PW1 and RW1. Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the respondents and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the revision petitioner. The Family Court on appreciation of the evidence found that the revision petitioner being a graduate in law and dentistry, it is open to him to pursue the profession either as a dentist or as a lawyer. The Family Court has also found that the revision petitioner is the only son of a Lieutenant Colonel and therefore, the only person to inherit the assets belonging to his parents. Despite the contention taken that the 1st respondent is earning around Rs.50,000/- from a Beauty Parlour run by her and from her work as a freelance beautician, the revision petitioner failed to establish those. Ext.A1 rent deed was produced by the 1 st respondent which would establish that she had taken a house on a monthly rent of Rs.8000/- to reside with her children. The children are also established by the oral evidence tendered by the 1 st respondent as pursuing education in 7th and 6th standards. The revision petitioner though contended that the institution s wherein the children are admitted for education are not that much expensive, he did not even attempt to establish that. In the above scenario that the Family Court was constrained to grant Rs.18,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.7,000/- each to the 2nd and the 3rd respondents as the modified sum of maintenance. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the revision petitioner has quitted his profession as a Dentist, he failed to produce any material to establish the same.