IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 468 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.500/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- KODAKATH ANANDAN, 38 YEARS, S/O KOTHAKATH RAMAN, PONNANI TALUK, ESWARAMANGALAM AMSOM, KOTTATHARA DESOM. BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PREETHA, 32 YEARS, D/O PULLUNNI DAMODHARAN, THUYYAM, EDAPPAL P.O., PONNANI POLICE STATION. 2. PRANAV(MINOR), 4 YEARS, (MINOR PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER) 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.BINDU SREEKUMAR, SMT.V.AKHILA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.12987/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.468/2009 DISMISSED 29/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.468 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.500/2009. The mother and a minor child, aged 4 years moved an application for maintenance against the revision petitioner and the family court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/= to the wife and Rs.1,700/= to the child. Aggrieved by the said decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard. The reason for separate living is alleged to be the matrimonial cruelty. It is also alleged that the wife has got hatred towards the husband and his mother. This man has already married once and he has got two children in the said wife. It is submitted by the wife that the husband used to misbehave in a cruel way and used to even speak about sex very badly and further he used to tell others that neither he nor his mother is having any peace on account of the wife. The husband while taking the wife in a : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.468 OF 2009 bike fell down and she sustained injuries. It is alleged that it is a deliberate act. Anyhow a criminal case is pending and I do not want to elaborate on that. So seeing the whole conduct of the husband the family court felt that there are justifiable reasons for living separately which cannot be found fault with. 3. Now turning to the quantum. At present the husband is not employed abroad. While he was employed abroad it is submitted that he was employed in the filed of interior decoration and has some income. The family court did not have any materials to arrive at a decision but considering the past employment and other circumstances had ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/= and Rs.1,700/=. 4. I feel that the said approach cannot be upheld for the reason that necessity has to be always considered along with the capacity to pay and then only there will be real justice done to both the parties. He is a young man. His son has to be brought up well. Both the husband and wife belong to good families and expect reasonable : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.468 OF 2009 living.So taking into consideration all these aspects, I am inclined to show some leniency to the husband by refixing the maintenance to the wife at Rs.3,000/= and that of the child at Rs.1,500/=. 5. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of by refixing the quantum of maintenance to the wife at Rs.3,000/= and that of the child at Rs.1,500/= per month payable from the date of petition and the mother can collect the amount on behalf of the minor child. If any amount is paid or deposited, that shall be given credit to. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.468 OF 2009