IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 483 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.380/2003 of FAMILY COURT, TRICHUR. .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- KORAN, S/O. MADATHIPARAMBIL KORAN, PARAPPUKKARA VILLAGE, MOOTHRATHIKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.T.M.CHANDRAN, MR.V.A.SASIDHARAN, MR.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. LEELA, D/O ARITHOTTATH KOOTTAN, VELLILAMANNU COLONY, MURIYAD VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.C.D.DILEEP R2 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.12210/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.483/2007 DISMISSED 25/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.483 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Thrissur in M.C.No.380/2003. The wife who was granted an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.50/= per month by an order in M.C.No.25/1979 got it enhanced to Rs.75/= and thereafter she has moved an application for increasing it to Rs.2,000/=. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit before the court that he is having a pension of Rs.2,500/= and at the maximum he will be able to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.250/=. 3. But, I find that the court without giving an opportunity to any of the parties fixed at Rs.500/= as maintenance and ordered the husband to pay the same. The said approach is erroneous which requires interference. When a party submits that he is prepared to pay an amount of Rs.250/= and if the court wants to make it Rs.500/=, the normal procedure contemplated is to conduct an enquiry : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.483 OF 2007 and decide the matter on merits. The court jumped into its own conclusion and increased the amount to Rs.500/=. Therefore the order requires interference. 4. In the result, I set aside the order passed by the family court and remit case back to the family court for fresh consideration by permitting both the parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and let the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Till that time, let the husband continue to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.250/= per month as agreed by him. Parties are directed to appear before the family court on 23.3.2010. If the wife does not appear on that date, the husband shall take out notice to her for the said purpose. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.483 OF 2007