IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 430 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.400/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REV.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ HANEEFA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. PALEMPADIYAN ABU, PALEMPADIYAN HOUSE, KALATHODIKA, PADINHATTUMURI.P.O, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND STATE -------------------------------------------------- 1. HASEENA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. PALLIPARAMBAN YOUSUF, PALLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, CHETTYARAMMAL, WANDOOR.P.O, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PONNATHU SHERIN (MINOR), AGED 10 YEARS. 3. HASEENA THANSNI (MINOR) AGED 9 YEARS. 4. MOHAMMED ANAS (MINOR), AGED 7 YEARS. MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER - GUARDIAN, FIRST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM FOR 1 TO 4 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 430 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.400/09. The couple are blessed with three children but are separated and the wife and children are claiming maintenance from the revision petitioner. The Family Court on an analysis of the materials granted Rs.1,600/- to the wife, Rs.700/- to the first child, Rs.600/- to the 2nd child and Rs.500/- to the third child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel for both the sides. The main dispute is only regarding the quantum. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that though he was a mechanic working in Bombay he has come to his native place and therefore the claim of maintenance ordered cannot be paid by him as he is not having sufficient income. 3. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent would contend only a very nominal amount has been ordered R.P(F.C.) NO. 430 OF 2009 -:2:- and it should not be disturbed. The Family Court found that he is now in the native place for the last six months. There is nothing standing in the way in himself working as a mechanic either in Kerala or in Bombay. Therefore the Family Court took an income at Rs.400/- per day and ordered maintenance. The Family Court also found that he has to look after his mother. If really is a mechanic certainly he will be on demand but absolutely no materials are forthcoming to prove his factum of employment as a mechanic in the native place. If he is working in Bombay certainly he may have to incur large expenditure for accommodation as well as for food. Therefore taking stock of the entire materials and also the amount which is awarded the only leniency that can be shown is to reduce the quantum of maintenance ordered to the wife by Rs.200/- by refixing it at Rs.14,000/- retaining the amount granted by the Family Court to the children. In the result the R.P.(F.C) is disposed of by refixing the quantum of maintenance to the wife at Rs.1,400/- and R.P(F.C.) NO. 430 OF 2009 -:3:- retaining the amount ordered to the children as Rs.700/- to the first child, Rs.600/- to the second child and Rs.500/- to the third child payable from the date of petition. The amount due to the minors can be drawn by mother. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-