IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 84 of 2010() --------------------- MC.52/2009 of Family Court, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- SAYYID ALI T.P.,S/O.MUHAMMED, THONDIPULAKKAL VEEDU, POYLISSERY P.O.,KARATHOOR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK,REP.BY HIS P/A HOLDER MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA,S/O.THONDIPILAKKAL MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT THONDIPILAKKAL (H) P.O.POILISSERY, POLLISSERY DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ 1. T.K.LAILA D/O. ABU,THEKKINKADAN HOUSE, KADANNAMANNA P.O., MANKADA VIA, PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMAD SHAMEER (MINOR)S/O. SAYYID ALI, RPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN FIRST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 84 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.52/09. The wife and child moved an application for maintenance and the husband was ordered to be pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- to the wife, Rs.1,200/- to the child. It is against that decision the revision is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that he is not so affluent as projected to pay maintenance as ordered to be paid to the wife and child. It has come out in evidence that he is an NRI and according to him he is working as a cook cum supplier in a cafeteria and the Family Court has observed that even in Kerala a cook will be entitled to Rs.400/- per day. It appears that he had also admitted that he is having sufficient income to maintain two wives and the children but that by itself cannot take us anywhere to fix the income of the person R.P.(F.C.) NO. 84 OF 2010 -:2:- at Rs.25,000/-. It is only a wild guess of the Family Court. I feel in the absence of specific materials some leniency can be shown at the same time without depriving the wife and child for an at least a reasonable living. Therefore I refix the maintenance at Rs.2,000/- to the wife and maintaining the order regarding the son at Rs.1,200/-. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance refixing it at Rs.2,000/- to the wife and maintaining the order regarding the son at Rs.1,200/- both payable from the date of petition. The amount due to the minor can be drawn by the mother. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be given credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-