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. 398 of 2007() ------------------------------- MC.293/2005 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------- BINDU K.P., AGED 29, KELOTH HOUSE, PALLURUTHY P.O., KONAM, KOCHI 6. BY ADV. SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL SMT.S.SHEEJA KUMARY(AYOOR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------- SURENDRAN C.K., AGED 30, S/O. KRISHNAN, CHAVARUTHI PARAMBU, NETTOOR, MARADU, KOCHI 682 304. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.398 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 2nd day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court , Ernakulam in M.C.No.293/2005. The petitioner was granted maintenance of Rs. 900/- per month from the husband. Aggrieved by the same she has come up in revision for enhancement of the maintenance. The short question is regarding the quantum. Admittedly, the husband is working in an Insurance Company and the document Ext.X6 revealed his salary on that day as Rs.8,241/-. The court below considered it and decided that his carry home salary is Rs.5,000/- but it has only awarded a maintenance of Rs.900/- per month which is very much on the lower side. There was a claim for past maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- in another matter and I am informed that, that has been disallowed and that case is pending before this Court in appeal. I just mention it for the reason R.P.(F.C) No.398 OF 2007 2 regarding the real claim of the petitioner in the case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent that the husband has taken loan for the treatment of his mother and he is indebted and he is saddled with much liability. It has also to be remembered that wife also has to subsist and an amount of Rs.900/- in 2007 will not be a reasonable amount at all. But as laid down by courts, the court has to strike a balance considering the necessary as well as the income of the husband in awarding maintenance. So analysed in that backdrop, I feel a reasonable enhancement can be granted making the maintenance at Rs.1,300/- per month, I do not want to interfere with the discretionary power used by the Family Court making it out from the date of the order. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of by enhancing the quantum of maintenance of Rs.900/- to Rs.1,300/-that too payable from the date of order. Any amount if paid shall be given credit. Disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns