IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 265 of 2008() --------------------------------- MC.174/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR. .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- 1. CLARIS CHERIAN, W/O.BINOY MATHEW.P., VETTUKALLEL HOUSE, EDANADU KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 2. SAVIO P.MATHEW (MINOR), D/O.BINOY MATHEW.P., VETTUKALLEL HOUSE, EDANADU KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AS NEXT FRIEND. BY ADV. MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SMT.A.SREEKALA. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- BINOY MATHEW. P., S/O.P.T. MATHEW, POTTATHADATHIL HOUSE, KOORALI P.O., ELAMKULAM KARA, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN . THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.265 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kottayam in M.C.No.174/2007. The wife and child moved an application for maintenance and the court below ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/= to the wife and Rs.500/= to the child. Dissatisfied with the same, the wife and child have come up in revision for enhancement. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as counsel for the respondent. Perused the documents and depositions. The unfortunate couple who are litigating are not able to reconcile and the request of the husband for restitution of conjugal rights had been turned down holding that the wife is not living separately without any reasonable cause. A perusal of the said judgment would reveal that the husband was adamant that the wife should be sent to the counselling centre and she must take treatment for mental illness and thereafter he will take her. The court found that itself will show the lack of bonafide : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.265 OF 2008 on the part of the husband to take back the wife. Attribution of mental derangement is a form of cruelty and therefore, I do not find any ground to hold that the finding of the family court is wrong in that aspect. 3. Now turning to the quantum. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that even as per the documents produced at the time of trial, the husband was having a carry home salary of more than Rs.11,000/= and the document produced by the husband would show that he was having a carry home salary of Rs.10,417/=. He was having a total income of Rs.14,632/= even as per Ext.B1. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend before me that in the present set up this salary is grossly inadequate and there may not be much left over after catering the need of one person. It is also contended by him that he has to look after his parents and therefore this Court shall not interfere with the amount ordered as maintenance. On the contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits before me that here is a wife and child who had to also live and considering the terrific : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.265 OF 2008 cost of living, the amount awarded is totally inadequate. It is true that being a teacher by profession he may have to properly dress, may have to use a conveyance and keep his dignity in the society. It is one side of the picture. It does not mean that the lady whom he had married with the averred object of looking after her through out the life be thrown to the street without being properly maintained. One cannot now a days precisely find out the needs of the persons for the reason that people are now treating luxurious items of the olden days as the bear minimum necessity. A balance has to be struck. A lady has to take her food, has to dress properly and she has also to move in the society. She has also to cater the needs of the child who has to go to the school and now a days even from the kindergarten level cost of education is also reasonably high. 5. So, I am conscious of the fact that the husband should be only ordered to pay the amount which he is capable of paying and at the same time he has to see that the recipients are also properly cared for. Considering the : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.265 OF 2008 income as Rs.11,000/=, I feel in the interest of justice the maintenance awarded has to be increased. Therefore in the fitness of things, I award Rs.2,500/= as maintenance to the wife and Rs.1,000/= as maintenance to the child in stead of Rs.1,000/= and Rs.500/=. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed modifying the quantum of maintenance to the wife from Rs.1,000/= to Rs.2,500/= and to the child from Rs.500/= to Rs.1,000/= payable from the date of petition. The mother is authorised to receive the amount on behalf of the minor child. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.265 OF 2008