2025:KER:28995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 62 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.11.2022 IN MC NO.246 OF 2017 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MC: IVIN JACOB AGED 40 YEARS S/O LATE ABRAHAM CHACKO , RESIDING AT MOOLAKKATTU HOUSE, ARPOOKARA, P.O, ARPOOKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686008 BY ADVS. ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) P.I.RAHEENA SHAHNA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN MC: 1 NIDHU ANNA GEORGE AGED 34 YEARS D/O KURIAN JACOB , MULAPPURATHU HOUSE , CHANNANIKKADU P.O , KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686533 2 ASHEL IVIN JACOB (MINOR) AGED 12 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NIDHU ANNA GEORGE, 2025:KER:28995 RPFC NO.62 OF 2024 2 MULAPPURATHU HOUSE , CHANNANIKKADU P.O , KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686533 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28995 RPFC NO.62 OF 2024 3 ORDER This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in M. C. No.246/2017 dated 01.11.2022. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent. The respondents filed M. C. No.246/2017 for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court after the trial, enhanced the monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the 1st respondent and ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the 2nd respondent. It is challenging the said judgment, this Revision Petition has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. As per the order in M. C. No.195/2013 dated 30.01.2016, a monthly maintenance of ₹1,500/- each to the respondents was granted. According to them, that amount is too meager to meet their present expenditures. More than 9 years have 2025:KER:28995 RPFC NO.62 OF 2024 4 elapsed since the earlier order was passed. As rightly held by the Family Court, there is substantial change from 2013 to 2022. Now, the 2nd respondent is attending school. The petitioner does not have any case that the 1st respondent has any job or source of income. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner is working with MRF and earns ₹60,000/- per month. However, it has been denied by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is getting a monthly salary of ₹15,000/- only. Ext.A3 is the salary certificate of the petitioner which would show that he is getting an amount of ₹32,109/-. After deduction, it appears that the petitioner is getting ₹14,503/-. However, the fact remains that his gross salary would come to ₹32,000/- per month. Considering the means of the petitioner and the requirements of the respondents, the enhanced monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court as per the impugned judgment appears to be very reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR