Ensuring maintenance support reflects the current needs of dependents is paramount, regardless of the payer's income changes, as per Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.

O R D E R

1.The petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.84/2011 on the files of the Family Court, Malappuram and the respondents herein are the petitioners therein. The above M.C. was filed by the respondents herein claiming enhancement of maintenance allowance under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. According to the respondents, they were granted with maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.600/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.500/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 per month in M.C. No.403/2006. It is the case of the respondents that their day-to-day living expenses have been considerably increased and the respondents are in need of more money for their food, clothing, medicine, educational expenses, etc. The 1st respondent has no job or income and she is unable to maintain herself and the children. The 2nd respondent is studying in 5th standard and the 3rd respondent is studying in 3rd standard. A substantial amount is required to meet their educational expenses. More over, the minor respondents are having some diseases. They claimed enhanced maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- to the 1st respondent, Rs.3,500/- to the 2nd respondent and Rs.2,500/- to the 3rd respondent per month. The petitioner filed objection challenging the claim for enhanced maintenance. According to him, the claim for enhanced maintenance is excessive and beyond his capacity. He is only a fisherman and not getting an income at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month as alleged by the respondents in the M.C. It is also contended that the 1st respondent is a tailor and she is able enough to maintain herself and other respondents with the income from her job. After considering the rival pleas and evidence adduced by the 1st respondent as P.W.1 and the petitioners as R.W.1, the court below directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,500/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 per month from the date of filing of the M.C. The maintainability of the claim for enhanced maintenance and the determination of the quantum of enhanced maintenance allowance are under challenge in this revision petition.

2.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments assailing the findings, whereby the court below granted enhanced maintenance allowance to the respondents. According to the learned counsel, no evidence has been adduced to show enhancement in the income of the petitioner. The petitioner is a fisherman having an income as that of the year when the earlier M.C. was allowed. Secondly, he pronounced Talak in the year 2003 and thereafter he married again and is having two children. So he has to pay maintenance allowance to them also. In that view of the matter, the quantum of enhanced maintenance allowance determined by the court below is disproportionate with the income of the petitioner.

3.In view of the arguments advanced at the Bar, the question to be considered is whether there is any illegality in the determination of the enhanced maintenance allowance. It is the specific case of the respondents that in the earlier M.C.No.403/2006 they were granted with enhanced maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.600/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.500/- each to the respondents 2 and 3. According to them, the said amount is not sufficient to meet their day-to-day living expenses. Now the day-to-day living expenses have been considerably increased and they need more money for their food, clothing, medicine, educational expenses, etc. The 2nd respondent is studying in 5th standard and the 3rd respondent is studying in 3rd standard. Inflation and corresponding increase in the living index are universal phenomena, which do not require evidence and proof. The maintenance allowance, which is being received by the respondents, was fixed in the year 2006. Indisputably, the living expenses have been increased considerably by the lapse of more than five years. The fact that the 2nd respondent is studying in 5th standar