IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 232 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.359/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- KUNHEEN, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED, PANGINIKKADAN HOUSE, CHERUMUKKU, NANNAMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. RAMLA, W/O.KUNHEEN, PANGINIKKADAN HOUSE, CHERUMUKKU, NANNAMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ISMAIL P.K. - MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, MOTHER- GUARDIAN. 3. RASEENA P.K., MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, MOTHER - GUARDIAN. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.11460/2006 IN RP(FC) NO.232/2006 DISMISSED 12/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.232 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.359/2004. The wife and two children moved an application for maintenance and the court below granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/= to the wife and Rs.1,500/= to the first child and Rs.1,000/= to the second child. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends before me that the quantum awarded is excessive and it is not supported by any materials. The only factum which is available is that the revision petitioner is employed in gulf country for the last 13 years. It is contended by him that he is only having an income of 600 Saudi reals, but the family court did not accept it and jumped to a conclusion that the husband is earning Rs.30,000/=. 3. I am afraid that such a conclusion cannot be arrived : 2 : at on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The fact that he is working abroad may draw an inference that he is getting a reasonable amount there otherwise he would not have stayed in that country for 13 years. Therefore considering the materials in toto, I am inclined to show some leniency by reducing the maintenance of the wife to Rs.1,500/= and that of the children to Rs.1,000/= each. 4. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order of maintenance is modified by reducing the maintenance of the wife to Rs.1,500/= and that of the children to Rs.1,000/= each payable from the date of petition. The amount on behalf of the minor can be collected by the mother. Any amount paid or deposited shall be given credit to. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 :