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. 76 of 2009() --------------------- MC.183/2008 of FAMILYCOURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER:RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- SALAMUDEEN, S/O. MANMU, RANDU THAYYIL, PUNNAPRA PANCHAYATH, PUNNAPRA P.O., PARAVOOR VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, NOW RESIDING IN THE RENTED HOUSE OF SRI. JOHN CHERIAN , THAYYIL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA P.O., AMBALAPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY), MR.G.N.NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. SHYLAJA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. SAYYID MUHAMMED, AZUMA MANZIL, MANKULAM, KONNI MANGARAM MURI, KONNY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SHIJINA, AGED 9 YEARS, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SHYLAJA, D/O. SAYYID MUHAMMED, AZUMA MANZIL, MANKULAM, KONNI MANGARAM MURI, KONNY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR. K.SHAJ, MR.SAJJU.S. 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.2248/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.76/2009 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.76 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla whereby the family court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.850/= to the wife and Rs.750/= to the child per month respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the husband has come up before this Court. 2. Heard. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the wife and daughter are not entitled to get any maintenance as ordered by the family court. According to the wife, the husband is engaged in a workshop at Cherthala and also running a butcher shop by earning a sizable income of Rs.6,000/= per month from the workshop and Rs.150/= per day from the butcher shop. But both these facts are not proved by adducing any evidence. On the contra, the husband picturises himself as a disabled man, who has to maintain the other child who is with him. He had produced Ext.B1 to establish that he is undergoing treatment for rheumatism. The family court has observed : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.76 OF 2009 that the medical certificate obtained on the previous day of the examination lacks materials to attach the credibility to it. The revision petitioner has admitted at least at one point of time that he was working as a cleaner in a bus. He had also deposed that when his income was Rs.100/= per day, he used to entrust Rs.80/= to the wife for the household expenses. The attempt of the husband to totally wriggle out of making the payment of maintenance is not supported by any cogent materials. He is not sick or old as he wants to project and therefore he has to pay the maintenance. But, he has to maintain himself and the other child, who is with him and if he is having some ailment, he may require some amount for his treatment as well. Therefore, taking note of the entire situation, I feel that a little leniency can be shown by reducing the quantum of maintenance to the wife at Rs.700/= and to the child at Rs.600/= per month. 3. In the result, the revision is partly allowed and the maintenance ordered by the family court is modified by fixing the maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/= to the wife and Rs.600/= to the child per month both payable from the : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.76 OF 2009 date of petition and the mother is entitled to withdraw the amount on behalf of the minor. If any amount is in deposit, let it be disbursed to the petitioners in the MC. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl