IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 229 of 2006() --------------------------------- MC.178/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... PETITIONER (S)/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------- MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, BEKAL P.O. BY ADVS. MR.P.K.MOHAMMED PUZHAKKARA MR.VIKANTH K.PUTHUMANA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. MAIMOONA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. LATE ABOOBACKER, BENDICHAL HOUSE, R/AT ANGAKALARI, KOTTIKULAM, BEKAL P.O. 2. NAFEESATH MISSIRIA, AGED 2 1/2 YEARS, D/O. MAIMOONA, -DO- -DO-. (2ND MINOR , REPORTED AS PER MOTHER GUARDIAN IST PETITIONER) R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR.M.SASINDRAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.1578/2008 IN RPFC NO.229/2006 DISMISSED 07/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 229 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.178/05. The wife and daughter of the revision petitioner moved an application for maintenance and the Court below has awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.750/- to the child per month. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. It is the case of the wife that the husband had misappropriated her ornaments and has tortured her and had driven her out of the matrimonial home. It is also her case that he is a rich business man who earns about Rs.10,000/- per month and has got landed properties which will fetch an income of Rs.15,000/-. On the contra the revision petitioner would contend that there was no valid reason for her separation and he is not having any substantial income as he is only coolie by profession having a monthly income of Rs.800/-. Now it is only an oath against oath that has to be R.P.(F.C.) NO. 229 OF 2006 -:2:- taken into consideration to decide the matter. The young wife with a child of 2½ years normally would not leave the company of the husband unless there are reasons beyond her control for the same. She had complained about the torture and also the way in which the wife had been treated by the husband. I do not find any ground to disagree with the finding of the Family Court that there is sufficient reason to live separately. 3. Now turning to the quantum. The wife would contend that the husband is having an income of Rs.10,000/- per month from the business and another Rs.15,000/- from the landed property. Except her mere ipsidixit there is nothing coming forward to substantiate that contention. The husband takes the other extreme and would contend that he is only having coolie work with an income of Rs.800/-. This is also not acceptable. So considering the fact that he is an young man capable of doing work except the fact that he had undergone an appendicitis operation, a reasonable maintenance has to be awarded in such cases. But the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 229 OF 2006 -:3:- amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.750/- will be certainly on the higher side for the reason that he has to look after his mother as well. Therefore I feel that some reduction can be done with respect to maintenance to the wife making it as Rs.1,000/- and at the same time retaining the maintenance of the child at Rs.750/- per month. In the result the revision petition is disposed of modifying the order of the Family Court and the maintenance is reduced to Rs.1,000/- per month for the wife and Rs.750/- for the child and both payable from 20.4.2005. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-