IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 114 of 2008() -------------------------------- MC.137/2007 of THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------ SATHYAN,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. AMBADY KOOLERI VEEDU, KADINHIMOOLA, NILESWARAM VILLAGE THAIKADAPURAM POST, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD. BY ADV.MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- JAYANTHI,AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. KUNHIRAMAN RESIDING AT MADIYAN, KATTIRAVALAPP,MANIKOTH P.O. AJANOOR VILLAGE. R1 BY ADV. MR.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO.4072/2008 RPFC. NO.114/2008 DISMISSED 11/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.114 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.137/2007. The wife moved an application for maintenance against the husband and the court granted a maintenance of Rs.1,500/= per month from the date of the order. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. The unfortunate couple got married in 2002 and the wife left his house two years prior to the petition. The wife would contend that the husband was cruel to her and he had deprived of her gold ornaments and there was also demand for dowry. On the other hand, the husband would contend that the wife was never attached and she wanted to go to her house and it was on her accord she had left the matrimonial home. The wife has expressed her desire at the time of examination to join the husband. But the husband is not in a mood to take back the wife. So, it is clear that there is misunderstanding which cannot be easily : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.114 OF 2008 caped. Therefore I do not want to interfere with the finding regarding separate living. 3. Then the question is regarding the quantum. The wife would contend that the husband is a permanent employee of the KSRTC (Conductor) and that he is having reasonable income and that he is also having income from some properties. On the other hand, the husband would contend that he is only an employee of a temporary nature and used to get work only for 13 days. He would also contend that the wife is having some employment in a cashew factory having a weekly income of Rs.700/=. It has to be stated that no valid materials are produced to support the case of either of the parties. Even if the husband's argument is that he is only having 13 days' work in a month as a KSRTC conductor, a young man who is capable of doing work is not expected to sit idle for the remaining days. As he is a young man, he has to engage in some part time employment. He cannot wash of his hands stating that he is having some ailment. So far as back pain is concerned except a statement of the husband, no other : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.114 OF 2008 materials are forthcoming to establish that fact. In the absence of concrete evidence regarding his correct income, I feel that a little modification can be done with reference to the quantum that is by reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.1,500/= to Rs.1,200/= with effect from the date of the order. 4. Therefore the revision petition is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance payable by the husband to the wife from Rs.1,500/= to Rs.1,200/=, that too payable from the date of the order i.e., 18.1.2008. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.114 OF 2008