IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 262 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.320/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM .................... COUNTER PETITIONER. --------------------------------------- SOMAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN,THAYYIL VEEDU, AYANIVELIKULANGARA VILLAGE, S.V.MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.VIMALAN RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER. --------------------------------------- SUDHA SOMAN, KOCHUMAITHANATHU VEEDU, S.V.MARKET P.O., KOZHIKODE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------- R.P.F.C. NO. 262 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The husband who is ordered to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per month from the date of petition till date of order and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month has come up in revision challenging the excessiveness of the award of maintenance. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit before me that the revision petitioner is a person with large liability and has to look after his two children and parents and so the quantum of award is excessive . The Family Court has noted that the present income of the husband is about 13,000/- as salary. According to him he had taken a loan for the purpose of constructing a house and there is substantial deduction from the salary on account of the same. The Family Court noted that the said fact is not evidenced by the materials before the court. It appears that the difference of opinion between the spouses is on R.P.F.C. NO. 262 OF 2009 2 account of the fact that the husband wants the house to be transferred to the children which the wife refuses. He also submits that he is prepared to take back to the wife when she returns the house to the children. So it is conditional offer which the wife has declined. The learned counsel would contend that the father of the revision petitioner is only a pensioner and he has to be looked after. It has come out in evidence that he has having a pension of Rs.2,000/-. It has also to be noted that the wife had undergone some treatment and she has also to get that amount. Further it has been brought to the notice of the court that the first son has completed the course of Diploma in Engineering. So when all this materials have been put together and considering the background of the case and the necessity of the children the Family Court ordered Rs.750/- per month from the date of petition till the date of order and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month considering the increase in the salary. I cannot find that the said order suffers from any infirmity and the revision lacks merits and it is dismissed. The learned counsel would contend some breathing time may be given for the payment, I feel 4 months time can be granted for the R.P.F.C. NO. 262 OF 2009 3 payment, but it is made clear that as there is statutory limitation for filing applications for execution the wife can file the same but it may be kept pending without any coercive action for 4 months. RPFC is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. pm