IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 251 of 2006(E) ---------------------- MC.268/2003 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- MANZ AUGUSTINE, S/O.AUGUSTINE P.J., PAZHUPPADY VEEDU, ELOOR NORTH, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.N.A.ALI SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR.R. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. BINU MANZ, D/O.JOSEPH K.P., KOOTTALA HOUSE, NEAR ST.MARY'S CHURCH, ALANGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ALFIN MANZ, S/O.MANZ AUGUSTINE, RESIDING AT KOOTTALA HOUSE, ALANGAD P.O., REP. BY THE IST RESPONDENT MOTHER AS GUARDIAN. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.T.LILLY @ LILLY JAMES THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.251 OF 2006 ====================== Dated this the 2nd day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C No.268/03. The wife and son of the revision petitioner moved an application for maintenance and the Court had granted Rs.1000/- each as maintenance from the date of petition. It is challenging the same the revision petitioner has come up before this court. l The couple got married and they lived together only for a short span of time and thereafter he went to the place of his employment in Gulf country and thereafter he had not looked after his family properly. There are allegations and counter allegations. Admittedly the father had not seen the child after delivery. Under ordinary circumstance no wife would live separately away from the husband without reasons, so I do not want to disturb the finding on that aspect. R.P.(F.C) No.251 OF 2006 2 2. So far as the quantum is concerned though he was decently employed abroad. It is submitted that he had lost his job and now continue as a driver. The child was only 5 ½ months old at the time of filing of petition and court had considered the educational expenses also in awarding the quantum of maintenance. The education would start only from the age of 3 ½ or 4 years and not earlier. There is no correct picture before the court also to prove the income of the husband. Therefore taking into consideration the entire materials I feel maintenance ordered to wife Rs.1,000/- can be sustained and to the child can be modified by fixing it at Rs.600/- from the date of petition till the date of order and at the rate of Rs.800/- from the date of order, namely, 2.8.2006. The mother can receive the maintenance on behalf of the minor child. If any amount is paid or deposited that shall be given credit to. The RPFC is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns