IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 184 of 2007() -------------------------------- MC.75/2006 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER (S)/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- JOHNSON, S/O. ULAHANNAN, KANAKUNNIL HOUSE, VIMALA NAGAR, MAKKIKOLLI P.O., MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD. BY ADV. MR.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------- 1. JULIET SEENA, D/O. JOSEPH, PANDARAPARAMBIL, VAZHAKKAT THAZHAM, KOMMERI P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. ROSINIS, D/O. JOHNSON, AGED 8 YEARS, (MINOR) 3. NIXON, S/O. JOHNSON, AGED 5 YEARS, (MINOR), REP. BY 1ST RESPONDENT JULIET SEENA. ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO 4570/2007 IN RPFC. NO.184/2007 DISMISSED 21/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.184 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.75/2006. The wife and two minor children of the revision petitioner moved an application for maintenance on the ground that they have not been maintained and that the respondents have treated them with cruelty. It is also contended that the husband is having a very substantial income and therefore maintenance is claimed on that basis. 2. On the other hand, the husband would contend that he is only a labourer who does not have large income and therefore he is not bound to pay any maintenance. It is also contended that the wife is also having income and further that there are no grounds to live separately. 3. The learned family court judge after consideration of the materials awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,800/= to the wife and Rs.1,400/= each to the minor children. It is against that decision, the husband has come : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.184 OF 2007 up in revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents. It is evident from the materials available that there is no matrimonial harmony between the two and the allegation is that of cruelty and the court below found on analysis that there are grounds to live separately. 5. I do not want to interfere with that decision and it is a considered one. Now the next question is regarding the quantum. It can be seen from the material available especially in cross examination the wife that herself has admitted that she is having a beauty parlour and she is the Secretary of Kudumbasree and that she is having some income. That is why she had deposed that since she had taken a loan, the income derived is paid to that. In the reexamination she had admitted that she has got 25 cents of land but would say that it is not fetching any profit. So far as the husband is concerned, though it is averred that he is having an income of Rs.7,500/=, no positive evidence is forthcoming to prove that. But the husband had admitted in the cross examination that he has got 30 cents of land where there are pepper wines, cashew trees etc are there. : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.184 OF 2007 6. Here is a case where the wife is also having some employment and the husband is having 30 cents of land and he is also admittedly a labourer doing manual works. The court found that he is a very healthy man. The maintenance ordered by the family court appears to be on a little higher side for the reason that one cannot estimate income from 30 cents of land as high in a remote area especially when the cost of cultivation and cost of labourer has escalated so much. Even if a healthy man doing manual labourer, he may not be able to do work for the 30 days without any rest. I think, in the fitness of things, the amount that can be awarded as maintenance is Rs.1,000/= each to the wife and the two minor petitioners. 7. Therefore, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order of maintenance is modified by directing the husband to pay Rs.1,000/= each as maintenance to the wife and two minor children, that too from the date of petition. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.184 OF 2007