M.P.SETHUMADHAVAN Vs. MELEKKOTTU AMBIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 300/ - per month granted as maintenance in 1994 under Section 125 Cr.P.C was enhanced to 5,000/ - per month under Section 127 Cr.P.C by the Family Court Malappuram in a claim brought by the wife. The husband is aggrieved by the quantum enhanced, and so he has come up in revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The respondent brought MC 18/1992 against the husband in the court below claiming adequately under Section 125 Cr.P.C but she was granted only 300/ - per month. In 2011, she brought MC 726/2011 under Section 127 Cr. P.C claiming reasonable enhancement on the ground of high increase in her needs and necessities and also change in circumstances. The husband entered apperance and resisted the claim on the contention that she has her own income as Anganavadi Worker, and there has not been considerable increase over the years in his salary. He is admittedly a Nursing Assistant in Government service, and the wife is admittedly an Ankanawadi worker under the ICDS project. Her admitted salary is 4,050/ - per month. The husband admitted that his salary is around 25,000/ - per month. On a consideraintion of all the relevant aspects, including change in circumstances and also the limited salary of the wife, the trial court enhanced the amount to 5,000/ - per month as per the order dated 27.3.2014 in M.C 726/11. The husband is aggrieved, and his case is that such enhancement is not required when the wife has her own income from employment. 2. On hearing both sides on admission, I find the necessity of slight modification in the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Of course, there cannot be any doubt or dispute regarding the right of the wife to claim enhancement in the changed circumstances. 300 per month was granted in 1992, but she brought claim for enhancement only in 2011. Fortunately for the husband she did not make such a claim for 9 years. Anyway the trial court considered all the relevant aspects including the wife's own income. Admittedly she has a salary of 4,050/ - per month. Whether it is salary or honorarium, it is her income. The revision petitioner is admittedly a Nursing Assistant in Government Service having a salary of not less than 25,000/ -. 3. Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.PC. has an object. Once the court finds that the wife is entitled to get maintenance, the court's concern must be what exactly is the requirment of the wife. May be that the husband has a lot of assets or thousands of rupees as income. The object of 125 Cr.P.C is not to claim share in the income of the husband. Of course the wife will get what she requires reasonably for her maintenance. When she admittedly has her own income of 4,050/ - per month, a huge amount cannot be granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C or under Section 127 Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides, I find that 4,000/ - per month will meet her requirments in the changed circumstances, in addition to what she has already as her own salary as Anganavadi Worker. 4. Accordingly, the impugned order of the trial court can be slightly modified by reducing the amount to 4,000/ - per month. In the result, this revision petiiton is disposed of as follows, even without being admitted to files.