IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 12 of 2007() --------------------- MC.27/2006 of the FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDNET: --------------------------------------------- P.P.IBRAHIM, S/O.ALAVI, PUTHUPARAMBIL, N.S.S.COLLEGE ROAD, (P.O.) N.S.S.COLLEGE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY MR.BABU S. NAIR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------- 1. JAMSHEENA MOL, D/O.PATHUKALAN IBRAHIM, CHEMBAKUNNU, HALF-KIDANGAZHI, P.O.KARUVAMBRAM, MANJERI. 2. FATHIMA NISHMA, 4 YEARS (MINOR), (MINOR PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY GURARDIAN MONTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). BY MR.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 MR.N.M.MADHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(F.C.).No.12/2007 ORDER IN CRL.M.A.569/2007 IN R.P.(F.C.)No.12/2007 DISMISSED. Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE 08/01/2010 TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN,J =========================== R.P.(F.C.) No.12 of 2007 =========================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 ORDER This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.27/2006. The unfortunate couples are separated and the wife has moved the court below for past maintenance as well as the future maintenance. The petitioners before the court below are the wife and minor child of the revision petitioner. They got married on 15.06.2001 and the child is born to them in the wedlock. Now, the question for consideration before this court is regarding the quantum of maintenance ordered in the M.C. I had perused the award and also heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. The husband would contend that he is only a salesman in a bakery having an income of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) whereas the wife would contend that he is conducting a bakery and is having undivided share in the property of his father. The evidence is oath against oath. These are matters where one can possibly produce some documents so that the courts will be in a better position to fix the amount R.P.(F.C).No.12/2007 2 rather than fixing it depending upon a guess work. Now the factum whether he runs a bakery or not is not established. But the fact remains this man has again got happily married to another lady and is living with her and running a matrimonial home. Now having taken the pleasure and luxury life of having an another wife and he should not forget the tenets of Mohammedans law which warrants that he has got the duty to look after the wife whom he had married first as well. Therefore, he cannot escape from the liability but the fact that he has to look after two wives now is a real fact for which one requires income. Considering the factum of his capacity to work he can be considered as an able bodied man for the purpose of grant of maintenance under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly urges before me that the payment of amount of Rs.2,300/-(Rupees two thousand three hundred only) together would be a large sum considering source of avenue for the husband. I am prepared to show some leniency by reducing the amount awarded to the wife by sum of Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) but maintain the amount ordered to the child. It has to be stated that this shall not be a R.P.(F.C).No.12/2007 3 guiding factor in any proceedings regarding the grant of past maintenance. Therefore, the R.P.(F.C) is disposed of by modifying the order of the Family Court and fixing the monthly maintenance to the wife at Rs.1,250/-(Rupees one thousand and two hundred and fifty only) and to the child at Rs.800/-(Rupees eight hundred only) and both payable from the date of petition. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE dvs