IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 449 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.380/2006 of FAMILY COURT,L THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- GEORGE JACOB, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO,ERUPACKAL VEEDU, NELLIMALA PO,THATTAKKADU MURI, KOIPRAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, MR.T.P.PRADEEP. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SHERLY GEORGE,D/O. JOY CHERIAN, MANNANCHERIL VEED,PULLADU MURI, KOIPRAM VILLAGE. 2. SHIJIN, AGED 6 YERARS, DO..DO..DO..... 3. SHEBY, AGED 4 YEARS, DO...DO... (MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY IST RESPONDENT, MOTHER) R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.P.HARIDAS THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.11262/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.449/2007 DISMISSED 3/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No. 449 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.No.380/2006. The family court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/= to the wife and Rs.600/= to the first child and Rs.350/= to the second child. Dissatisfied with the same, the husband has come up in revision. 2. The husband has even denied the marital relationship but his evidence would reveal that he had married her and children had been born to them in the wedlock. He may clarify only regarding the legality of the marriage. What ever it may be, they had lived as husband and wife at least for a period of 4 years and two children are born to them in the wedlock. The factum of marriage is proved. Whether any particular ceremony to be followed etc need not be dealt with in a claim under Section 25 of the Cr.P.C, but it has to be established in separate proceedings. 3. Now turning to the quantum. It is submitted that the wife is working as a home nurse and the first child is : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No. 449 OF 2007 admitted in Balabhavan and the second child is jointly looked after by the father of the first petitioner and the respondent namely the revision petitioner. It is seen from the case records that the father has filed a complaint against the daughter attributing her indifference and a document is also produced to show that the first child is being looked after in Balabhavan. But, unfortunately these documents had not been tendered in evidence and no opportunity has been given to prove them. So the question of income of the wife and whether she is maintaining the children so as to claim maintenance from the husband are all relevant matters which require consideration for arriving at a proper decision. 4. Therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the parties. The order of maintenance passed is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the family court for fresh consideration with a direction to permit both the parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No. 449 OF 2007 the family court on 9.4.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No. 449 OF 2007