IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 55 of 2009() --------------------- MC.258/2007 DTD. 19TH AUGUST, 2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- ROY @ PHILIP,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN @ DEVASSYA, RESIDING AT URUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.TABORE,CHERUPUZHA,KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. MARY GEORGE,AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.ROY @ PHILIP, RESIDING AT CHURATHIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLARIKUNDU,PARAPPA VIA, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DIST. 2. ABIN ROY, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.MARY GEORGE, RESIDING AT CHURATHIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLARIKUNDU,PARAPPA VIA, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DIST. 3. ANGEL ROY,AGED 2 YEARS, D/O.MARY GEORGE, RESIDING AT CHURATHIL HOUSE, P.O.VELLARIKUNDU,PARAPPA VIA, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADVS. MR.C.A.JOSEPH, MR.K.K.MOIDEEN. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.1685/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.55/2009 DISMISSED 25/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== RP(FC) No.55 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of March 2010 ORDER This revision petition is preferred by the husband against the order of the Family Court, Kasargod in M.C.No.258 of 2007 directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- each to the children per month. The allegations against the husband are that he is a person who has dealt her with cruelty and has become a drunkard and never had bothered to look after the children. The husband on the contra would contend that the wife was a shrew and she had over dependency on her elder sister and she never wanted to have a peaceful matrimonial life. The Family Court also found it extremely difficult to find a solution to the two extreme views of the couple. The Family Court found that there was a solitary sentence in the counter statement regarding the preparedness to take back the wife and children. The Family Court was also convinced that it has not come from the bottom of the heart. So it found that the wife has to be given maintenance. As observed by the Family Court in matrimonial matters one has to approach the subject in a realistic manner and the Rp(FC)55/2009 -:2:- conduct of the parties have to be taken into consideration. So weighing this the Family Court had arrived at a decision regarding the entitlement of maintenance. 2.So far as the quantum is concerned, the husband would contend that he is running a small industry. We do not find much materials in support of the income of the husband whereas the liability is almost Rs.3,000/- per month as per the order of the court below. The children are very young, i.e. about 5 years and 2 years. So, taking into consideration the entire materials and in the absence of any specific materials to fix the quantum, I think a slight modification can be done by reducing the maintenance to Rs.1,500/- to the wife and retaining the maintenance of Rs.500/- each to the children with liberty for them to move under Section 127 as and when there are change of circumstances. In the result, the R.P.(FC) is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance and refixing it at Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.500/- each to the children payable from the date of petition. The mother is authorised to receive the maintenance granted to the children and the children can move before court under Section 127 when there are change of circumstances. If Rp(FC)55/2009 -:3:- any amount is paid or deposited, it shall be given credit to and the balance need be paid. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-