IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 404 of 2007() --------------------------------- MC.28/2006 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. C. SULFATH, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED MADANI, CHEMBAYIL HOUSE, VZHAYOOR EAST P.O., RAMANATTUKARA VIA, AKKOD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. FITHIN, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.ASHRAF, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER). BY ADV. MR.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- P.ASHRAF, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED PARAPPIL HOUSE, PANNIKKODE P.O., MUKKOM (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.C.PUSHPODHARAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(FC).No.404 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 9th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No 28/2006. The Family Court, Kozhikode ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- to the 1 ½ year old child. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the wife had come up in revision. 2. Heard and perused the records. 3. This maintenance case was tried along with a petition for restitution of conjugal rights as well as for custody of the child. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed and claim by the husband for custody of the child was turned out. It has also come out in evidence that the husband is remarried and is living comfortably with a new wife. The factum of cruelty spoken to by the wife had been taken into consideration R.P.(FC).No.404 OF 2007 2 negativing the husband's prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. S0, there are grounds to live separately. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned, the wife would contend that husband is having landed properties, besides his income from electrical work. Admittedly, the husband is an electrician. He has got licence and it has also come out in evidence that he used to employ helpers as well. It is common knowledge that a profession especially of an electrician is a lucrative one and that too in areas where large number of families of gulf employees live. The contention is only a coolie getting about Rs.100/- and Rs.150/- per day cannot be accepted. It has also come out in evidence that he is having undivided property. The husband is a young man a professionally qualified electrician and he has some property. It is deposed by the wife that she had filed a suit for partition of the property purchased in her name. That suit is pending and income therefrom is derived by the members of the husband's family. It is also deposed by her that she is not getting any R.P.(FC).No.404 OF 2007 3 income. Taking into consideration all these aspects a slight increase in maintenance is called for. I am conscious of the fact that the capacity of the husband has also to be taken into consideration to fix the quantum of maintenance. Considering the age of the person, the occupation of the person and landed property of the husband, I feel that Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs.500/- to the child will be reasonable. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of modifying the quantum of maintenance to the wife from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- and retaining the maintenance of child to Rs.500/-, both payable from the date of the order. The R.P(FC) is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns