ANIL S PILLAI Vs. SUDHA S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No. 210/2010 on the files of the Family Court, Thiruvalla. He is the husband of the 1st respondent as well as the father of respondents 2 and 3. The above M.C. was filed under Sec. 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of the quantum of maintenance allowance fixed in the earlier M.C. No. 74/2009 of the same court. In the above M.C., the revision petitioner was directed to pay monthly allowance of 1,250/- to the 1st respondent and 1,000/- each to respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) According to the revision petitioner, after the passing of Ext. A1 order in M.C. No. 74/2009, the cost of living has highly increased and a considerable amount is required for meeting the food, clothing and educational expenses of the respondents 2 and 3. Moreover, the 3rd respondent is a patient and substantial amount is required for purchasing medicine for him. In short, the monthly allowance which is being received by the respondents, at present, is not sufficient to meet the increase in the living expenses; whereas the revision petitioner is working abroad and getting huge amount as salary. So, he is liable to pay enhanced maintenance allowance in proportionate with the increase in the living expenses of the respondents.

(3.) Per contra, the revision petitioner contended that there is no change in the circumstance and the monthly maintenance allowance already awarded as per Ext. A1 Order in M.C. No. 74/2009 is sufficient to meet the needs of the respondents. In addition to that, he disputed the paternity of the 3rd respondent. So also, it is contended that he is a heart patient and he has lost his employment abroad and so he has no means to pay the enhanced monthly maintenance allowance claimed by the respondents.