A husband's obligation to maintain his wife and children supersedes the wife's potential income or employment status.

C O M M O N O R D E R

The revision petitions are filed challenging the orders in M.C.Nos.284 & 408/2012 of the Family Court, Palakkad. As the parties are the same, the revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The revision petitioner in these revision petitions is the husband of the first respondent in R.P. (FC)No.68/2016, who is the sole respondent in R.P. (FC)No.219/2016. The second respondent in R.P. (FC)No.68/2016 is the child born in the wedlock between the revision petitioner and the first respondent. For convenience, the parties are referred to as revision petitioner and wife and child.

3. The wife and child of the revision petitioner had filed M.C.No.208/2006 before the Family Court, for an order of maintenance. The application was allowed on 01.02.2008, ordering the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the wife @ Rs.2,000/- and to the child @ Rs.1,000/-. Nearly four years after the order, the wife and child filed M.C.No.284/2012, under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), for enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance and the revision petitioner filed M.C.No.408/2012, under the same provision to cancel the order of maintenance granted to the wife.

4. The case of the wife and child in M.C.No.284/2012 was that, consequent to the order in M.C.No.208/2006, there was a change of circumstances and their living expenses had increased, especially since the child was studying in the II^nd Standard. Hence, they were unable to maintain themselves with the maintenance allowance ordered in M.C.No.208/2006. The revision petitioner was doing business in distribution of surgical equipments in Kerala and Tamil Nadu and was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. He was also having landed properties and a house. Hence, the maintenance allowance may be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- & Rs.4,000/-, respectively from the present rate.

5. The application was resisted by the revision petitioner, who contended that the wife was a postgraduate in Arts and was well-employed as a school teacher. He was not earning Rs.1,00,000/-, as alleged. He had sold a joint-property to clear off his liabilities. The wife has attached his properties in an original petition filed before the Family Court. Hence, the application may be dismissed.

6. Almost on the same lines in the written objection in M.C.No.284/2012, the revision petitioner sought to cancel the order in favour of the wife in M.C.No.208/2006, and the wife resisted the application on the same pleadings in her application in M.C.No.284/2012.

7. The Family Court tried the two cases separately. In M.C.No.284/2012, the wife got herself examined as PW1 and marked Exts P1 to P3 in evidence. The revision petitioner got himself examined as CPW1 and marked Exts D1 to D6(b) in evidence. In M.C.No.408/2012, the revision petitioner got himself and two other witnesses examined as PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exts P1 to P9 in evidence. The wife got herself examined as CPW1.

8. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by independent orders, partly allowed M.C.No.284/2012 by ordering the revision petitioner to pay enhanced maintenance allowance to the wife and child @ Rs.3,000/- & Rs.2,000/-, respectively and M.C.No.408/2012 filed by the revision petitioner to cancel the order in M.C.No.208/2006 was dismissed.

9. Aggrieved by the separate orders passed against the revision petitioner, these revision petition are filed.

10. Heard; Smt. V.K. Hema, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Dhanya P. Ashokan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents – wife and child.

11. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order?

12. The revision petitioner admits his marriage with the first respondent and the paternity of the second respondent. He also does not dispute the fact that the Family Court had by the order dated 01.02.2008 in M.C.No.208/2006 directed the revi