IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.NO. 281 OF 2009() ---------------------------------- MC.569/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. FATHIMA, 34 YEARS, D/O MOOSA, CHAKKANTAKATHU HOUSE, MULLA ROAD, KADUVANADU AMSOM, PUTHUPONNANI DESOM, PONNANI TALUK. 2. GAFEEL, AGED 13 YEARS(MINOR), CHAKKANTAKATHU HOUSE, MULLA ROAD, KADUVANADU AMSOM, PUTHUPONNANI DESOM, PONNANI TALUK MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHIMA. 3. FARSEEL, AGED 11 YEARS, (MINOR) CHAKKANTAKATHU HOUSE, MULLA ROAD, KADUVANADU AMSOM, PUTHUPONNANI DESOM, PONNANI TALUK MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHIMA. 4. FARIS, AGED 10 YEARS(MINOR), CHAKKANTAKATHU HOUSE, MULLA ROAD, KADUVANADU AMSOM, PUTHUPONNANI DESOM, PONNANI TALUK MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHIMA. 5. FARSANA, AGED 9 YEARS (MINOR), CHAKKANTAKATHU HOUSE, MULLA ROAD, KADUVANADU AMSOM, PUTHUPONNANI DESOM, PONNANI TALUK MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHIMA. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- ABDUL GAFOOR, 35 YEARS, S/O ABDULLAKUTTY, ALAYAMAKKANAKATHU HOUSE, MULLA ROAD, KADUVANADU AMSOM, PUTHUPONNANI DESOM, PONNANI TALUK (PONNANI POLICE STATION LIMIT). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO.281 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioners are wife and children of the respondent in whose favour the court below has passed an order for payment of maintenance. As per the impugned order total amount payable to the petitioners is Rs.3,700/- per month. According to the petitioners, respondent had worked abroad for sometime and is now working as waiter in M/s.Cochin Bake House, Ernakulam. Respondent claimed that his earning per day is only Rs.100/-. He examined himself as R.W.1 and stated that apart from the salary, he is getting Rs.30/- per day. Court below observed that a person with such experience as the respondent could earn anything not less than Rs.400/- per day and based on that finding directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,700/- to petitioners. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded petitioners have come up in revision. 2. It is true that the amount awarded to petitioner No.1 is Rs.1,200/- per month while maintenance awarded to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is at the rate of Rs.700/- each per month and maintenance awarded to petitioner Nos.4 and 5 is Rs.600/- and Rs.500/- respectively, per month. Total amount comes to Rs.3,700/-. Court R.P(FC) No.281 of 2009 -: 2 :- below on a consideration of the circumstances came to the conclusion that respondent could earn at the rte of Rs.400/- per day. That finding is not based on any concrete evidence but on an inference which the court below has drawn from the circumstances of the case. The amount of Rs.3,700/- cannot be said to be low so as to call for interference. Considering the employment and income which the respondent is getting I am not inclined to think that the order under challenge is to be interfered with at the instance of petitioners. If there is any change of circumstances in favour of petitioners in future they can at the appropriate stage seek appropriate relief as provided under law before the appropriate Forum. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv