IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 433 of 2007() M.C.NO.173/2005 DATED 21.6.2007 OF FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O CHATHUKUTTY VAIDYAR, CHERUDATHIL HOUSE, NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM, P.O. ARAKKINAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER P.SIJINA, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O CHANDRAN, MEPPANATH HOUSE, CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE, NOW RESIDING AT C/O SETHU, EDAKKULATHIL HOUSE, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., CALICUT. ADV. MR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(FC).No.433 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 9th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No. 173/05. The husband who has been ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- to the wife has come up in revision challenging the same. The wife is a person who is employed. The materials available before the Court to reveal that after deduction she has only a carry home salary of Rs.1,897/-. The husband though claimed to be a very rich man with so many resources of income is at least found to be a person who is getting commission for collection of the amount to the bank besides being an LIC agent. The income in 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 varies in between Rs.66,577/- to Rs.74,312/-. Certainly an average amount of more than Rs.50,00/- per month. He is also a LIC agent. Though the income is not separately proved there will be some income from that as well. So from this two R.P.(FC).No.433 OF 2007 2 avocation the Family Court found that he may be getting an income of Rs.7,000/- per month. I feel the said calculation is not wrong. The wife's claim for maintenance is on the higher side i.e, Rs.6,000/- per month. She is equally having an employment though that it is less than the remuneration of the husband. Both of them have lived comfortably and the court have taken into consideration the factum and ordered only reasonable maintenance of Rs.500/- to be paid by husband to the wife. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the amount of Rs.2000/- derived as salary by the wife is sufficient. I feel that such an approach cannot be correct in the present set up when there is escalation of prices and cost of living has become so high by any stretch of imagination I am not inclined to hold that the rate of 500/- per month is excessive. Therefore revision lacks merits and dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns R.P.(FC).No.433 OF 2007 3