IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 123 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.157/2008 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- P.K.RAJAPPAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNJU, POTHASSERI HOUSE, ANAPRAMBAL MURI, THALAVADI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.P.J.JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. JAGADAMMA, D/O.GOVINDAN, PALANILKKUNNATHIL, PADINJARETHARA MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE. 2. SONU (MINOR), PALANILKKUNNATHIL, PADINJARETHARA MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, JAGADAMMA, D/O.GOVINDAN, PALANIKKUNNATHIL, PADINJARETHARA MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 123 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.157/08. The 56 year old wife and 17 year old daughter moved an application for maintenance against the revision petitioner and the Family Court has granted a maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,200/- to the child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Perused the order. A perusal of the order will reveal that the husband has not been treating the wife in the way in which she is to be treated and it is submitted that he is assaulting her and had even chopped her and ultimately the father of the first petitioner purchased some cows and a motor for pumping water from the field. The husband would deny the acts of cruelty. Why should a 56 year old wife without any reason attempt to project a case of this nature after long cohabitation as husband and wife. The son has attained R.P.(F.C.) NO. 123 OF 2009 -:2:- majority and the daughter is about to attain majority and she is 17 years old. No responsible mother having a daughter of 17 years of age will attempt to be away from the husband without reasonable cause. Therefore the Family Court correctly assessed the situation and found that they are entitled to maintenance. 3. Now turning to the quantum. The husband according to the wife is owning a motor pump and he was using it for pumping out water for the purpose of cultivation and is deriving a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. On the other hand the husband would contend that he has already sold the motor set for the purpose of purchasing an Almira for the house. It is trivial a story which cannot be believed. Then he wants to highlight as if he is a patient unable to do any work. Except for his mere oral assertion no evidence was adduced in this regard. The Court also found him to be a healthy man and therefore ordered maintenance to be paid. It is true that concrete materials are not available to establish the correct income of the husband. Therefore taking into R.P.(F.C.) NO. 123 OF 2009 -:3:- consideration that aspect as well as the aspect that he is capable of earning I modify and reduce the quantum of maintenance to Rs.1,000/- each to the wife and daughter. Therefore the R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by confirming the order of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and reducing the quantum of maintenance to the daughter from Rs.1,200/- to Rs.1,000/- per month payable from the date of petition. The amount due to the minor can be drawn by the mother. If any amount is deposited let it be disbursed to the petitioners. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-