IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 269 of 2008() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2008 IN ORDER IN MC.622/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ KADAMBOTT BASHEER, S/O.HAMZA, KADAMBOTT VEEDU, EDAKKATTU PARAMBU, VETTILAPPARA POST, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------- T.SAINABA, D/O.THETTAL UMMER, MOYANGATTU PARAMBU, MUNDAKKULAM, MUTHUPARAMBA P.O. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 269 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.622/07. The revision petitioner is the husband and the court below directed him to pay a maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the wife and it is against that decision he has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent. Unfortunately the couple had fallen out after a prolonged period after the marriage, as unfortunately the wife became a heart patient and husband had gone in search of another wife and that is how the case has reached the court. So wife is not able to satisfy the husband. A lady who is sick has also to be protected for the reason that it is the primary duty of the husband to look after his wife till the end irrespective of any caste or religion. The husband would contend that the wife is a substantial lady with 60 cents of land and therefore she can R.P.(F.C.) NO. 269 OF 2008 -:2:- maintain herself. 3. Ext.D1 is a partition deed entered into between the members of the petitioners family whereby item No.5 in Ext.D1 is allotted to the share of wife. But it is very clearly recited in the document that there is a life interest reserved in favour of the mother which means that the right to enjoy the property is postponed till the death of the mother. Therefore there cannot be any source of income for the lady to look after herself. 4. The next contention is that the husband would submit that he has got lot of complaints and he is unable to make his both ends meet. This man was away in gulf country and evidence is let in before court that he had purchased some items of land in between the period 1999 – 2002. Though he would depose that he had sold some of the items it is not established by producing any documents. It is seen that there are some immovable properties with a new house which belong to the husband. The husband has also taken the luxury of marrying another lady and he is living with her. He is maintaining her also. It has also come out in evidence that R.P.(F.C.) NO. 269 OF 2008 -:3:- the husband was employed abroad for long number of years and he would also depose that at least at one point of time he has three lorry services and now it is under the attachment of the financier. He would depose that he is a construction worker and is capable of doing the same as a member of that society. Therefore the husband is not a man without any resources at all but after the passing of the order of Family Court it is seen that he had undergone some treatment relating to neurology and he requires a prolonged treatment but when one is afflicted with renal problem certainly the capacity to work will come down. But at the same time the man who was in gulf countries for long number of years and a man who is said to be having capacity to work etc. are to be taken into consideration in fixing the quantum. The need of the wife unlike other ladies is more for the reason that she is a chronic heart patient who requires much medication for her survival but an amount of Rs.4,000/- as maintenance appears to be on the higher side for the reason that there are no concrete evidence to establish that the husband is capable of R.P.(F.C.) NO. 269 OF 2008 -:4:- making such a payment. So taking into consideration all these aspects and striking a balance in between the two I feel in the interest of justice the order of maintenance can be reduced from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/- and therefore the order is modified accordingly. 5. In the result the revision petition is disposed of and the order of the Family Court is modified by directing the husband to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the wife from the date of filing of M.C. Needless to say that parties are at liberty to move the Court again if there are change of circumstances u/s 127 Cr.P.C. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-