IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 112 of 2009() --------------------------------- MC.204/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------------------- 1. PUSHPALATHA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN NAIR, W/O.SETHUMADHAVAN, LATHA NIVAS, ERATTUPARAMBA, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. NIKHIL, AGED 10 YEARS, (MINOR), S/O.SETHUMADHAVAN, LATHA NIVAS, ERATTUPARAMBA, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. 3. NEETHIKA (MINOR), AGED 6 YEARS, D/O.SETHUMADHAVAN, LATHA NIVAS, ERATTUPARAMBA, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, VALVE OPERATOR, KERALA STATE WATER AUTHORITY, KOOLIMADU, NAIRKUZHI P.O., KOZHIKODE AND RESIDING AT QUARTERS OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOOLIMADU. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN. R2 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.BENNY VARGHESE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 112 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.204/07. The Family Court granted a maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- to the wife and Rs.500/- each to the children payable from 6.1.2009. The wife and children had moved this Court for enhancement of the maintenance. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. The counsel for the revision petitioner would strongly contend before me that the amount ordered is quite inadequate and the husband is capable of giving more and so for their existence this Court may improve on the quantum of maintenance. 3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent would contend he is already in debt, he has also an old mother to be looked after and he is to retire on 31.3.2010 and therefore taking into consideration those R.P.(F.C.) NO. 112 OF 2009 -:2:- aspects there need not be any enhancement. Learned counsel further contends before me that the mother of the respondent is suffering from cancer. 4. A perusal of the order would reveal that the total salary of the husband is Rs.8000/- and his carry home salary is Rs.6,049/-. It is submitted that he has to retire on 31.3.2010. When a person retires then naturally and necessarily the maximum pension one will be entitled to have will be only 50% and under those circumstances if I order an enhancement of maintenance after retirement it would really defeat the purpose of granting maintenance for the reason the husband will not be in a position to pay that enhanced amount. So bestowing my best attention to the facts of the case I feel that a reasonable increase can be granted from 6.1.2009 till 31.3.2010 and thereafter the amount as ordered by the Family Court. 5. Therefore the revision petition is disposed of whereby the wife is granted a maintenance of R.1,000/- per month from 6.1.2009 to 31.3.2010 and that of the child at the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 112 OF 2009 -:3:- rate of Rs.600/- from 6.1.2009 to 31.3.2010 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.750/- and Rs.500/- as ordered by the Family Court. Any amount that is paid or deposited and paid in excess shall be given credit to. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner wants this Court to make the order of maintenance from the date of petition. The Family Court after considering the materials had used its discretion to grant it from the date of order with which I do not propose to interfere. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-