IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 396 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.40/2007 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- BHASURAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, MAMBRATHARAYIL VEEDU, KAPPIL MEKKU, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. GEETHA, D/O.SARIYAMMA, KUTTITHARAYIL VEEDU, WARD.NO.9, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, KRISHNAPURAM. 2. GREESHMA, D/O.GEETHA, KUTTITHARAYIL VEEDU, WARD.NO.9, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, KRISHNAPURAM. 3. GEETHU, D/O.GEETHA, KUTTITHARAYIL VEEDU, WARD.NO.9, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, KRISHNAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL FOR R1-R3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.396 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. R D E R This revision is preferred by the husband against the order of the Family Court, Alappuzha directing payment of maintenance of Rs.1,000/= each to the children. It is the case of the revision petitioner that after the matrimonial discord, in the presence of the mediators an agreement- Ext.X1 was executed whereby it was decided to transfer 5.65 Ares of land which stand in the common name of the husband and wife in favour of one of the children and to transfer 4.30 Ares of land in the name of the wife to another child. After the execution of the said agreement, it was agreed upon that the wife has to give back the “Thali” tied and the wife would pay to the husband Rs.50,000/= and that she will look after the children and will not claim any maintenance. The wife attempted to retract from the agreement under the pretext that though she had signed the agreement, she does not know the contents of the document. The family court after analysing the evidence of : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.396 OF 2009 RWs 2 and 3 decided the question that with both eyes open she had executed Ext.X1 agreement and thereafter had attempted to get away from it. The husband on the contra in pursuance of the agreement, complied by transferring his right in the property to the minor children. But the said document was also executed in the name of the two children covering an area of 5.65 Ares of land. The wife did not transfer her 4.30 Ares of property as stated in Ext.X1. It is also not proved that she had granted Rs.50,000/= to the husband as contemplated in the agreement. 2. I am conscious of the fact that by entering into a contract between the husband and wife, the right of minors cannot be defeated. But it has to be held that when something is given to the minor children that can be taken note of by the court in fixing the quantum of maintenance. 3. Here is a case where the wife has totally attempted to be away from Ext.X1 agreement. Knowing fully well about the implication, she had also undertaken to look after the children or in other words what should have been in her mind is to make use of the income derived from 5.65 + 4.30 : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.396 OF 2009 Ares of land also for the purpose of maintaining the children. But, the extent involved is hardly 20-22 cents and there are no materials to show the total income derivable from the property and it has also to be stated that there is a residential house in one of these properties which means there is no much extent of balance land which is capable of producing good income. So by that property alone, the children could not be maintained. The husband had another contention that he is a chronic diabetic person unable to do any work. Except the oral assertion made by him and his witness, no document in support of the ailment which could be easily established by producing the same was made available before the court. So, the court cannot be found fault with for not relying upon the mere oral assertion of the witness regarding the ailment. Further, the husband was a person who was employed abroad for a period of 12 years. So naturally he would be having some amount with him as well. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had brought to my notice the decision reported in Ashoka : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.396 OF 2009 Dutta Gupta v. Sujit Dutta Gupta (2000 KHC 1436). It was a case where there was reduction of maintenance from Rs.200/= to Rs.100/=. The court held that ends of justice never wants such a reduction. There cannot be any quarrel about the said proposition. But each case has to be weighed and looked into on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Here is a case where the husband has done something for the children. He had transferred what ever right he has in the property in favor of them. The mother has agreed to transfer 4.30 Ares of land in her favour and to pay Rs.50,000/= to the husband. The husband had parted with the property which he has and he is complaining about ill health and materials are also lacking to show what his income could be now. 6. Therefore taking into consideration all these facts, I am inclined to order reduction of maintenance in the case at the rate of Rs.750/= per month instead of Rs.1000/= per month. 7. In the result, the revision is disposed of by refixing : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.396 OF 2009 the quantum of maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/= per month to the children payable from the date of petition. The amount if any paid or deposited shall be given credit to and if any amount is in deposit, it shall be disbursed to the minors as well. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl