IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 167 of 2009() ---------------------------------- MC.374/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- ISMAIL. M.P., S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 36 YEARS, MENATHATT PURAYIL HOUSE, ERAVANNUR (P.O), NARIKKUNI (VIA), KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. MR.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. K.P. HASEENA, D/O.KUNHAMMED, AGED 26 YEARS, KALLIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, ERAVANNUR (PO) NARIKKUNI (VIA), KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. MUHAMMED ISSAM, AGED 10 YEARS, S/O.ISMAIL M.P., REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER K.P. HASEENA, KALLIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, ERAVANNUR (PO), NARIKKUNI (VIA), KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. ABDULLA UMAIR, AGED 7 YEARS, S/O.ISMAIL M.P., REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER K.P.HASEENA, KALLIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, ERAVANNUR (PO), NARIKKUNI (VIA), KOZHIKODE TALUK. R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, ALONG WITH RPFC NO. 248 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 167 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.MA.NOS.4678/2009 & 6111/2009 IN RPFC NO.167/2009 DISMISSED 24/03/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.167 OF 2009 & R.P.(F.C).No.248 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. O R D E R Both these revisions are preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.374/2007. R.P.(F.C). No.167 OF 2009 is preferred by the husband challenging the quantum and the other revision is filed by the wife and children raising inadequacy of the quantum. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the wife and children that enhancement is sought for only with respect to the children in the case. Along with the maintenance case, there was a case for restitution of conjugal rights as well and the said case was dismissed by the trial court and I am informed that a matrimonial appeal is pending before the Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel also submits before me that she had moved an application for divorce and obtained divorce. Therefore the reason to live separately does not deserve consideration at this stage. R.P.(F.C).No.167 OF 2009 & R.P.(F.C).No.248 OF 2009 : 2 : 3. The next question is regarding the quantum. According to the wife, the husband was employed abroad and he is an expert cook and he is having large income from his profession. On the other hand, the husband would contend that he was not able to continue his job at gulf and therefore has come back and is not having much work and therefore he is unable to pay the huge amount as maintenance. 4. I find from the order of the family court that the children are directed to be with the mother during the working days and with the father during the holidays. It means that children are under the maintenance of the father for 8 days in a month and the balance days with the mother. The learned counsel for the wife would contend that the children are being educated in a good school and therefore larger amount is necessary for educating them. 5. This cannot be said to be an incorrect approach, but at the same time one has to also look into the capability of the man to look after all of them. As stated earlier, the R.P.(F.C).No.167 OF 2009 & R.P.(F.C).No.248 OF 2009 : 3 : husband has to maintain the children for 8 days in a month. He is only a cook by profession. He is not very well educated. There is no absolute data to show regarding the income which he is deriving. Therefore he has to be considered as a coolie or just above the coolie and when that income is taken into consideration, there cannot be a sizable enhancement now and therefore, in the interest of justice the matter can be disposed of by retaining the order maintenance of Rs.1,000/= to the wife and enhancing the maintenance to the children at the rate of Rs.250/= by making it Rs.750/= which is subject to variation under the provisions of Section 127 of Cr.P.C. 6. Therefore both the revisions are disposed of by refixing the quantum of maintenance to the wife at Rs.1,000/= per month and at the rate of Rs.750/= per month to the children payable from the date of petition and the mother is entitled to receive the amount on behalf of the children. If any amount is in deposit, that shall be given credit to and the balance need be paid. R.P.(F.C).No.167 OF 2009 & R.P.(F.C).No.248 OF 2009 : 4 : Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl R.P.(F.C).No.167 OF 2009 & R.P.(F.C).No.248 OF 2009 : 5 :