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. 138 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.183/2008 of Family Court , MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- JINS JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, KARAKKUNNEL HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM P.O., ANGADIPURAM AMSOM, PARIYAPURAM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ---------------------------------- 1. JINI JINS, KARAKKUNNEL HOUSE, P.O.PARIYAPURAM, ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA. 2. JINU, AGED 10 YEARS, (MINOR), REP. BY THE MOTHER, JINI JINS, KARAKKUNNEL HOUSE, P.O.PARIYAPURAM, ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA. 3. JEEMOLE, 7 YEARS, (MINOR), REP. BY THE MOTHER, JINI JINS, KARAKKUNNEL HOUSE, P.O.PARIYAPURAM, ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA. ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. FOR R1TO3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 138 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.183/08. The Family Court had granted an order of maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife, Rs.700/- to the first child and Rs.600/- to the second child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. This case was tried along with two other cases, O.P.Nos.194 and 424/08. O.P.424/08 is filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It is seen dismissed by the Family Court. Now it is brought to my notice that subsequent to the same O.P.342/09 was filed by the husband for the custody of the two children and the Family Court by virtue of the order dated 1/6/09 had granted custody of the children to the father. By virtue of this the maintenance ordered in favour of the children has to be set aside and I do so. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 138 OF 2009 -:2:- 3. The next question is regarding the wife's entitlement for maintenance and the quantum. In a case moved for restitution of conjugal rights the Family Court has refused to grant that prayer and therefore it is very clear that the wife is not living separately without any reasonable cause. 4. Now turning to the quantum. The Family Court directed at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the wife. I had perused the entire order. It is seen that the husband has availed a loan of Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. It makes almost 3½ lakhs. He is running a workshop and is doing a work of a mechanic as well. He has to discharge the liability which he had taken and over and above the same he is also bound to maintain his children who are with him in a proper manner. Therefore taking into consideration those aspects I am inclined to show leniency and further it can be seen when there is a deposit of Rs.60,000/- in the Bajaj Allianze New Unit Gain Plus in the name of the wife. This indicates that there is amount in her name as well. So considering all these aspects I reduce maintenance to the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 138 OF 2009 -:3:- wife to Rs.1,500/- per month. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is partly allowed and the maintenance ordered in favour of the children are set aside and the maintenance ordered to the wife is fixed at Rs.1,500/- per month payable from the date of petition. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to and the balance need to be paid. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-