SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50711

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
SELVARAJ – Appellant
Versus
LAKSHMI – Respondent
RPFC 84 2017



Advocates:
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES

A change in the cost of living can warrant an increase in maintenance payments under Sections 125 and 127 of the Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Family Law - Cr.P.C. Section 125, Section 127 - The court interpreted Sections 125 and 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing the significance of a change in circumstances and rising living costs as justifications for increasing maintenance payments.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged a Family Court order that enhanced his maintenance payment obligations, initially set at a lower amount several years ago. The wife claimed the previous amount was insufficient due to increased living costs, while the petitioner claimed financial difficulties.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the Family Court's decision to increase maintenance, recognizing that rising living costs constituted a change in circumstances justifying the enhancement despite the petitioner's claims of reduced financial capacity.

Issues: Whether the increase in maintenance amount was justified based on the change in circumstances and rising costs of living.

Ratio Decidendi: The maintenance amount can be modified if there is proof of a change in circumstances, including the cost of living. The court recognized that an increase in maintenance is warranted when significant economic changes occur.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the Family Court's decision to enhance maintenance payments.

O R D E R

~~~~~~~

1.The petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.392 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The aforesaid petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein, the wife of the petitioner, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court, Palakkad by order dated 23.11.2009, allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,300/- per month to the respondent herein and Rs.1,000/- per month to their child, who was aged 14 years at that time.

2.After a lapse of about six years, the respondent approached the court below and filed a petition under Section 127 of the Code seeking enhancement of maintenance allowance.

3.According to the respondent, the petitioner is now in affluent circumstances and is earning in excess of Rs.One lakh per mensem. The amount of Rs.1,300/- per mensem ordered in the year 2009 is insufficient to meet her monthly expenses. According to her, the cost of essential commodities has increased manifold and sought for enhancement of maintenance to Rs.20,000/- per mensem.

4.The respondent entered appearance and denied that there was any change in circumstances. According to him, he is suffering from various ailments and he was working as a helper to a mason and is getting only a sum of Rs.750/- per day. On his side, he also produced Exts.D1 to D7 series medical records.

5.The learned Family Court after considering the evidence and materials on record, allowed the petition and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per mensem by the impugned order. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this petition.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

7.Under Section 127 of the Code, the court can, on proof of a change in the circumstances of any person receiving monthly allowance, order alteration of the amount originally ordered. One of the circumstances which govern award of maintenance is the cost of living. There cannot be any doubt that the cost of living and the price of essential commodities have increased manifold. The allowance of Rs.1300/- was granted in the year 2009. More than six years had elapsed. Rise in cost of living amounts to change of circumstances entitling the wife to claim enhanced maintenance. Though the petitioner has submitted certain documents to show that he is suffering from several ailments, the fact remains that he is aged 47 years and is in the construction business. His claim that he was working as the helper of a mason was not accepted as such by the court. The amount of Rs.3,000/- ordered towards enhanced allowance cannot be said to be highly excessive. Though as per the earlier order, maintenance was awarded to the mother and child, as the child had attained majority, no application for enhancement was filed. I am of the considered view that all relevant aspects have been considered by the court below. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the order impugned and also the materials on record, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground for interference in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.

I find no reason to interfere. This petition will stand dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top