IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 24 of 2010() --------------------- MC.119/2008 of Family Court, PALAKKAD .................... REV.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- MURALI, S/O.KRISHNAN EZHUTHASSAN PULIKKAL VEEDU, MARIKKOLUMBU, KOODALLUR P.O., PALLASSANA VILLAGE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S) PETITIONERS : ------------------------------------ 1. RADHA, D/O.NARAYANIKUTTY, IKKARAPARAMBU, PALAPPURAM P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. 2. MEGHA (MINOR), AGED 9, D/O.RADHA, REP.BY MOTHER, RADHA, DO. 3. SNEHA (MINOR) AGED 8, D/O.RADHA, REP.BY MOTHER, RADHA, DO. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 24 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.119/08. The Family Court had granted an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- each to the two children. Aggrieved by the same the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would strongly contend before me that there are no reasonable and valid grounds for the wife to live separately and therefore the order of maintenance in favour of the wife has to be nullified. So far as the said contention is concerned according to the wife the husband has treated her with cruelty and that is the reason for her separate living. Materials brought out would reveal that the husband was always connected with money and the complaints made against the wife are that he had lend a sum of Rs.70,000/- to his mother-in-law and the wife left the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 24 OF 2010 -:2:- matrimonial home along with the children and had taken away Rs.25,000/- which was kept there for the purpose of discharging a liability due to a Bank. It has also come out in evidence that a suit for realisation of the amount from the mother-in-law was dismissed with compensatory costs. It has also to be stated that, under ordinary circumstances as observed by the Family Court a person who makes some money for the purpose of discharging the liability would not have kept it in Almira of the house for a long time. So some how or the other the husband always wanted to attribute on the wife that she is attempting to take away the money or depriving him of the money which he has. It is also very astonishing to find an answer to the question that the wife herself had told him about her working in five houses as servant maid and deriving Rs.5,000/- as income. Such a situation would never arise when there is a dispute between the parties. So I do not find any correctness in the contentions of the husband that wife is living separately without any valid reasons. Therefore I confirm the Family R.P.(F.C.) NO. 24 OF 2010 -:3:- Court finding regarding separate residence. 3. So far as the maintenance is concerned the capacity of the husband has been dealt with by the Family Court and it is stated that there are six cents of land which had been given to the wife by the husband in which it is alleged that there are six coconut trees and two mango trees. The husband would contend that the wife had given it on lease for Rs.20,000/- but it is not a matter which had been substantiated further and it can not be believed that in a property where there are only six coconut trees anybody will take it for a lease for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. So that contention also cannot be accepted. 4. Now it is contended that he is not having much income from the business. The Family Court found that he had purchased a route permit for 2½ lakhs and a bus for 2½ lakhs for which he had availed a loan from the Bank. It has also come out in evidence that he had sold the bus and permit and repaid the amount. So it is to be stated that he is a man with resources and is capable of making money. Therefore it cannot be said that he is not a man without any resources so R.P.(F.C.) NO. 24 OF 2010 -:4:- as to pay the maintenance to the wife and children. But it has to be stated that there is no precise data to fix the income of the person. Therefore taking into consideration the totality of the matters I reduce the quantum of maintenance to the wife by Rs.250/- and to the children by Rs.200/- each. Or in other words the maintenance is refixed at Rs.1,750/- to the wife and Rs.800/- each to the children, both payable form the date of petition. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is modified by refixing the quantum of maintenance at Rs.1,750/- to the wife and Rs.800/- each to the children payable from the date of petition. The amount due to the minors can be drawn by the mother. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-