IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 136 of 2008() ------------------------------- MC.211/2003 of THE FAMILY COURT , ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): IST PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SMT. ANNIE JACOB, AGED 47 YEARS D/O. K.V.THOMAS, KALARIKAL HOUSE, POOPPANI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES SMT.P.F.ROSY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------- JACOB, AGED 57 YEARS,S/O. LATE DEVASSY VELIYATH HOUSE, POOMKKUDY, ELANJIPA P.O. CHALAKKUDY. R1 BY ADVS. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C)No.136 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.No.211/2003. The wife and three children moved an application against husband of the 1st petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4 for maintenance and the court below declined maintenance to the wife and awarded Rs.1,750/=,Rs.1,250/= and Rs.1,000/= to petitioners 2 to 4 respectively. It is challenging that decision, the wife has come up in revision. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner very strongly urges before me that the court below had gone wrong in refusing maintenance to the wife. The unfortunate couple whose relationship had become strained now were in Gulf country where the wife also did have some employment and it is evident from the materials available that an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was deposited with the Chalakudy Bank. Subsequently it has come up in evidence by the Manager of the Bank that Rs.1,10,000/= and Rs.60,000/= were converted into F.D receipts and transferred : 2 : R.P.(F.C)No.136 OF 2008 to Perumbavoor branch and remaining balance of Rs.1,50,000/= was also transferred to the said Perumbavoor branch. The documentary evidence available in the form of Ext.X1 and evidence of RW2 is to the effect that the wife did have a sum of Rs.3 lakhs which was transferred and put in the Perumbavoor branch. For Rs.3 lakhs even if 7% interest is calculated, it will fetch an annual interest of Rs.21,000/=i.e., Rs.1,750/= per month. The husband is already saddled with payment of maintenance of Rs.4,000/= to the children and therefore, the court below considered all those aspects and declined maintenance to the wife. It has to be remembered that this Court is only exercising the revisional jurisdiction where interference is called for only if there is perversity, misappropriation or misapplication of law and facts. I cannot find fault with the Family Court in arriving at the decision. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend before me that the amount had been withdrawn and expended and there is no income for the wife. This is a matter which should have been proved before the court below and not at : 3 : R.P.(F.C)No.136 OF 2008 the revisional stage. I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Family Court and therefore, the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl