IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 308 of 2007() ------------------------------- M.C.NO.581/2006 ORDER DATED 25.4.07 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED ALI, S/O. MUHAMMED, VAKKATHODI HOUSE, P.O.UPPUKULAM, ALANELLUR (VIA). EDATHANATTURKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------- 1. HASANATH, VEGATHAN THODI HOUSE, KARKIDAM KUNNU P.O., MANNARKAD. 2. NAJIYA, D/O. HASANATH, -DO- -DO- 3. NASIF ALI, S/O. HASANATH, -DO-, R2 AND R3 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. FOR R1 TO 3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON 10/03/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C).No.308 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 10th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.581/2006. The wife and two children moved an application for maintenance and the court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/-per month to the wife from 15.1.05 to 25.3.06. The children were awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month from 15.1.05. It is against that order the revision is preferred. A perusal of memorandum of revision would show that the grounds alleged are that:- 1. The court had not entered into a finding regarding the income of the husband. 2. The court has not attempted for a conciliation. 3. The court has not permitted him to produce evidence. and R.P.(F.C).No.308 OF 2007 2 4. The wife was also capable of making means. 2. So far as the reason to live separately is concerned, it has come out in evidence that the husband has pronounced 'talaq' on the wife and she has become a divorcee. So, the question of any reconciliation by the Family Court would not have been possible. The wife had deposed before the court that the husband and his father had treated her with cruelty. She had even deposed that on account of the cruelty, she sustained injuries and had been admitted in a hospital and a criminal case is pending regarding the same. So, the reason to live separately till a divorce is properly established. 3. The next question is the quantum. According to the wife, the husband is having about 5 acres of land and an income of Rs.10,000/- per month from tapping. On the contra, the husband would contend that he is not having any property and his income is very low and he will get the remuneration of Rs.80/- per day on the day when he goes for tapping. Reading of the cross examination of the R.P.(F.C).No.308 OF 2007 3 revision petitioner would reveal that there are 33 tapping rubber trees in his compound and that he is a tapper under a person. He would also depose that there are also 3 or 4 coconut trees in that property. The father is no more. The mother is having an extent of 32 cents of land. He admits about the co-ownership of the properties. It is also his case that it is he who is looking after the properties after his father's death. The revision petitioner is 37 year old man and admittedly a tapper by profession. He is having landed properties at least as a co-ownership and is the person managing the same. 4. So, it can be safely presumed that even if he taps for a period of six months, he will get a reasonable income and nothing prevents him from going for any other job during the days when there is no tapping. He is also enjoying the usufructs of father's property. Therefore taking into consideration this aspect the court has granted the order of maintenance. So far as the wife is concerned, it is only for a period of 14 months and 10 days that to at the R.P.(F.C).No.308 OF 2007 4 rate of Rs.500/- per month. The children are also given very nominal maintenance amount of Rs.400/- each. Therefore, the finding of the Family Court cannot be said to be incorrect improper or illegal. The revision lacks merits. Hence it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns