IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 114 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.199/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ COUNTER PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------------------------------------- G. ANIL KUMAR, “GOPIKRISHNA”, T.C.22/345, ATTUKAL, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONERS : ------------------------------------- 1. SHERIN V. NATH ALIAS MINI, 'MINI MANDIR', PULLUVILA, NEYYATTINKARA THALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GOPIKA, (MINOR) D/O G. ANIL KUMAR, 'MINI MANDIR', PULLUVILA, NEYYATTINKARA THALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JYOTHIKA, (MINOR) D/O G. ANIL KUMAR, 'MINI MANDIR', PULLUVILA, NEYYATTINKARA THALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 114 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in M.C.199/06. The Family Court had ordered a maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,750/- each to the wife and two children from 20.10.2006 and it is against that decision the husband has approached this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. I am informed that connected matters are pending before the Division Bench in matrimonial appeal and therefore dwelling deep into the whole thing may prejudicially affect one of the parties. Therefore in a case of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. rigour is less and therefore necessary ingredients that alone is required is looked into for arriving at a decision. 3. It is stated before me that the wife is prepared to go with the husband but the husband has got his own reservations in taking the wife and therefore it appears that the matrimonial rupture had deepened. I leave it there. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 114 OF 2009 -:2:- Almost a congenial atmosphere for a happy matrimonial life is no more in existence and the allegations and counter allegations before the Court below would further show that there was no peaceful atmosphere in the matrimonial home. Therefore the wife and children cannot be blamed when they claim separate maintenance as they live separately under these circumstances. 4. Now turning to the quantum. The husband would contend that he is a running a finance institution by name Gopika Finance. It has come out in evidence that there is an STD booth and a photocopy shop. It is also admitted that a portion of the same is rented out for the purpose of running a beauty-parlour. Money lending by pledging is a lucrative business for the reason people charge very huge interest and therefore it cannot be said that the man is not having sufficient income at all. If really his income is so low as he wants to project he should have produced some accounts to prove the same. It is not forthcoming. Therefore a reasonable income can be taken in this case. The wife also R.P.(F.C.) NO. 114 OF 2009 -:3:- has to look after herself and maintain two children who are going to school. Considering the entire back drop I feel a little leniency can be shown by fixing the quantum of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the petitioners 1 and 2 and Rs.1,250/- to petitioner No.3 in the maintenance case. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance refixing at Rs.1,500/- each to the wife and first child and Rs.1,250/- the 2nd child payable from the date of petition. The amount due to the minors can be drawn by the mother. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to and it shall be also disbursed to the petitioners. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-