IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 2 of 2007(E) --------------------- MC.224/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- KUNHALI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI, BHEEMANADU, ALANALUR DESOM, MANNARKKAD. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMLATH, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED, PALAPPURATH, KATTUKULAM, ALANALUR AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. NAJMUNEESA, AGED 10 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O.IST PETITIONER. 3. MUBASEERA, AGED 7 YEARS (MINOR), D/O.IST PETITIONER. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS.MR.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.694/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.2/2007 DISMISSED 17/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.2 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.224/2006. The two minor children of the revision petitioner have been ordered to be paid at the rate of Rs.600/= per month each as maintenance. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard both sides. The main thrust of the argument is that the second petitioner in the MC is residing with the father and therefore there is no necessity to pay any maintenance to her. The revision petitioner is living abroad and therefore the question of living with the father does not arise. 3. The court below found that there was a tussle for custody and mere interim disturbance shall not defeat the case of maintenance to the child. If really there are change of circumstances whereby the second petitioner in the MC is in the custody of the father or members of his family, the law : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.2 OF 2007 is not silent and Section 127 of Cr.P.C enables the party to move for variation or cancellation of the order. 4. So far as the quantum is concerned, admittedly the father is employed abroad and the maintenance awarded is a very small amount of Rs.600/= each which cannot be said to be on the higher side by any stretch of imagination. 5. Therefore the revision is dismissed making it very clear that if there is any change of circumstance, the parties are at liberty to move for variance of the order as contemplated under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.2 OF 2007