IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 381 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.252/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER:RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- AJMAL, AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.MOIDEEN MASTER, EDALODI HOUSE, COURT GATE, MANJERI,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. MR.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. RASHA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.SAYED ABDUSALAM, KOLLATHODI HOUSE, AMBALAPPADI, PUTHALAM, AREACODE PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SERIN, AGED 4 YEARS, D/O. AJMAL, (MINOR) 3. SEBIN,AGED 3 YEARS, D/O.AJMAL, (MINOR) (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER IST RESPONDENT) R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92), SMT.P.MAYA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.10269/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.381/2009 DISMISSED 08/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.381 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.252/2009. An Assistant Engineer/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/= to the wife and Rs.3,000/= to the first child and Rs.2,000/= to the second child as maintenance. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision for reduction of the amount. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend before me that the tribunal did not give an opportunity to cross examine the petitioners in the MC and that the amount awarded is highly excessive. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the amount awarded is only proper and the order does not call for any interference. It appears that the couple belongs to two respectable families and two children are born to them in the wedlock and now they are : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.381 OF 2009 fighting before the court. It is quite unfortunate. The husband is a Government servant and the wife is a qualified dietitian having obtained Masters Degree in Home Science. It is submitted that she is currently not working. Annexure A1 reveals gross salary of the husband as Rs.20,436/= and deduction is Rs.8,100/= and the net salary of the husband is Rs.12,336/=. Ext.A8 which is produced and marked in the connected case would indicate the income at Rs.23,451+ HRA of 150. The deductions made are GPF subscription of Rs.2,000/=, GPF refund advance of Rs.5,350/= and Group Insurance Scheme of Rs.250/=. It has to be stated that statutory liability to contribute to the PF is about 6% and a person can deposit any amount in the GPF and in that process contend for the position that the carry home salary is least and therefore would not be able to pay more maintenance. 4. Now two persons of respectable families have come forward with rival contentions and therefore the matter to be decided is what shall be the quantum. The law does not permit to calculate the maintenance on the basis of carry : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.381 OF 2009 home salary but it shall be on the basis of the total salary. So if it is taken into consideration, it is certain that the person will have about Rs.17,000/= as salary which can be carried home. It is on this basis, I have to determine the maintenance. It is true that the husband is an Assistant Executive Engineer. He has to maintain certain standard of living. He has to go to the office and come back by using vehicle. He may have social status as well. It is one side of the picture. The other side of the picture is that he married from a respectable family and two small children are born in the wedlock and they have also to be reasonably maintained. 5. After bestowing to the facts in mind and also the circumstances mentioned in the this case, I feel that the order of maintenance to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/= to the wife and children together appears to be certainly on the higher side. As I stated earlier, the total carry home salary by permitting the permissible deductions would be in between Rs.16,000- 17,000. So, I feel the maintenance can be fixed exactly at 50% of Rs.16,000/= i.e. Rs.8,000/=. Therefore, I reduce the : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.381 OF 2009 quantum of maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.4,000/= and that of the children at the rate of Rs.2,000/= each payable from the date of petition. I may also to state that the wife is a qualified person having Post Graduate Degree in Home Science. Whenever she gets job, certainly the husband would be entitled to move the court under Section 127 of Cr.P.C for reduction of the amount of maintenance ordered to the the wife. So, the revision is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance and refixing it as follows: 6. I order maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/= to the wife and Rs.2,000/= each to the children payable from the date of petition. The mother can receive the amount on behalf of the children. Any amount paid shall be given credit to. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl