IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 413 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.703/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- KALLINGAL ELAYODATH MOIDEEN, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.VEERAN,ELAYODATH HOUSE, TIRUR TALUK,TIRUR AMSOM, P.O. TIRUR, EZHUR VIA. BY ADVS.MR.P.K.IBRAHIM, SMT.K.P.AMBIKA, MR.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE, MR.C.N.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. VALLIKKATTU VALAPPIL JAMEELA,AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. SAITHALI, PONNANI TALUK,MUTHUR AMSOM CHEKANNUR DESOM, P.O.MUTHUR. 2. RASHA SAHAD, AGED 7 YEARS,(MINOR) REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT VALLIKKATTU VALAPPIL JAMEELA,D/O.SAITHALI, PONNANI TALUK, MUTHUR AMSOM,CHEKANNUR DESOM., P.O.MUTHUR. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, MR.LAL K.JOSEPH, MR.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, MR.P.H.SAVAN KUMAR, MR.V.R.REKESH. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.413 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.703/2006. The wife and son moved an application for maintenance against the revision petitioner and the court below granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/= to the wife and Rs.750/= to the child from the date of the MC. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that there is no valid ground to live separately and secondly the quantum awarded is excessive. It is the case of the wife that the husband at the time of marrying her had suppressed the factum and when she was brought to the house, the first wife was not in the house and she was told about the fact that really the first wife was very serious in health. It is also contended that the first wife, mother and the revision petitioner used to ill treat her and had deprived : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.413 OF 2007 of her ornaments etc. The court below noted the conduct of the husband even from the court. When she gives some version against the husband, he got irritated and threatened her that he will kick her when he comes out of the court. This is the basic attitude which the court found. Considering the age of the child when a question was put whether he was studying in school and in which standard he was studying, the revision petitioner was not able to give any answer which indicate how truthful he had been towards his wife and child. Therefore the version of PW1 regarding the reason to live separately cannot be said to be incorrect. 3. The next question is regarding the quantum. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had produced some photographs to show that the revision petitioner is disabled. The revision petitioner had filed a very detailed counter affidavit before the court and no contention is raised regarding any of the disabilities before the court below. 4. The court exercising the revisional jurisdiction has : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.413 OF 2007 only the limited power to look into the impropriety or illegality of the order passed and therefore at this point of time this Court cannot entertain such contentions. But I find from the materials available that there is no proper evidence to show what his income would be. The wife would submit that he is running a foreign goods shop and had landed properties and deriving a very sizable income, but no positive materials are available to establish that fact. There is only oath against oath and the only probability that can be weighed with the court is that he is a man married and he has got three daughters in his first wife and a mother who are being regularly maintained by him. When he marriages second time, it is his responsibility to look after that wife also comfortably and happily. They have to survive as well. He cannot get out of the responsibility of maintaining the wife and child. Considering the materials available, I think that little leniency can be shown as no adequate materials available to show his approximate income. 5. Therefore, I modify the award by reducing the : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.413 OF 2007 maintenance from Rs.1,500/= to Rs.1,000/= and retain the maintenance amount ordered to the child at Rs.750/= payable from the date of petition 6. In the result, the revision is partly allowed and the order of maintenance granted in favour of the wife is reduced from Rs.1,500/= to Rs.1,000/= and that of the child is retained at Rs.750/= payable from the date of the petition. The mother is authorised to receive the maintenance amount on behalf of the child. If any amount is paid or deposited, that shall be given credit to. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.413 OF 2007