IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 399 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.2/2006 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN MC NO.2/2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. USHA MENON, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.RAGHAV MENON, RESIDING AT R-3, IST STREET, CHOICE PARK, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI 682 026. 2. RAHUL MENON, AGED 16 YEARS, D/O.DEVAN MENON, RESIDING AT R-3, IST STREET, CHOICE PARK, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI - 682 026, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THE IST REVISION PETITIONER. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.AJITH MURALI SMT.R.BEENA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN M.C.NO.2/2006. 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVAN MENON, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.S.MENON, DEVAKINANDAN APARTMENTS, JAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN FOR R1 SRI.T.GANGADHARA BHAT FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 399 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.2/06. The wife and second son had moved an application against the husband for maintenance. The Court below granted a sum of Rs.1,500/- each payable from the date of petition and dissatisfied with the same the petitioners in the M.C. have come up in revision for enhancement. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. The wife is already a divorced wife and therefore she is covered by the definition of wife under S.125 Cr.P.C. The son is studying in a good school as well. According to the wife the status of the respondent is very high and he is holding a covetable managerial post in an establishment and according to her he is drawing an income of Rs.70,000/- per month. It is stoutly denied by the other side. The Family Court relied upon Ext.B23 which is a document relating to income tax by R.P.(F.C.) NO. 399 OF 2007 -:2:- self assessment where the income of the person is shown as Rs.30,000/- and a deduction of Rs.20,049/- towards house building advances. Therefore the Family Court found that with the residue of Rs.10,000/- he has to maintain himself and his newly married wife as well as former wife and the son. So considering the entire materials the Court allowed a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit before me that respondent is having an income of Rs.70,000/- and a petition was filed to produce the document and it has not been produced and therefore an adverse inference has to be drawn. It may not be correct to draw an adverse inference and basing on the same to fix the income of the person. I feel an opportunity can be given to the wife and son to summon all the salary particulars of the person and establish before Court regarding his income. If the respondent is able to produce the same then it may not be necessary to call for the records. Therefore an opportunity can be given. So the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court R.P.(F.C.) NO. 399 OF 2007 -:3:- for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to both the sides concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. It is made clear that as an interim arrangement an amount of Rs.1,500/- has to be paid by the husband till a final decision is taken in the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 5.4.2010 and let there be an expeditious disposal of the matter. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-