IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 131 of 2006() -------------------------------- MC.217/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... REVN.PETITIONER (S)/ RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- B.A.ABDUL RAHIMAN @ REHMAN, BANDIYOD, 40 YRS, S/O. MOHAMMED, FATHIMA MANZIL, NEAR BANDYOD JUNCTION, MANGALPADY VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. MR.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------- 1. AYSHA, AGED 30 YRS, D/O. MOIDU BAVIKKARA MOOYAYIL, MULIYAR POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. KAMARUNNISA, AGED 12 YEARS, DO. DO. 3. KAIRUNISA, AGED 7 YEARS, DO. DO. (PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 MINOR REP. BY 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER.) R1 BY ADV. MR.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE, SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C)No.131 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.217/2005. The court below granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/= to the wife, Rs.1,500/= to the first child and Rs.1,000/= to the second child. That is to commence from 3.3.2005. The respondent does not really participate in the trial and the Family Court arrived at a figure merely on the basis of the oral evidence of PW1. The revision petitioner is stated to be a person who is having a shop in audio and video and also having landed properties. Except the mere oral assertion of the wife, nothing is forthcoming to establish his income. On the other hand in the counter statement he would contend that he is a disabled man and is depending upon his brother for livelihood. Certainly it would not be correct for the reason that the 1st petitioner herein is his second wife and he has already his first wife. Therefore the story in the counter R.P.(F.C)No.131 OF 2006 2 statement that he is not having any income cannot be accepted. But there are no materials to award huge maintenance of Rs.4,000/= without any data. 2. Therefore in the fitness of things, considering the age of the man and his capacity to earn and also the reasonable need of the wife and children, I modify the award by reducing the maintenance to the wife to Rs.1,250/= to the 1st child Rs.1,000/= and to the second child Rs.750/= to be paid from 3.3.2005. The amount already deposited has to be taken into consideration for the same. Disposed of accordingly M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 :