IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 257 of 2009() ------------------------------ MC.185/2005 of FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- A.NISSAR,NIFLA MANZIL, KARICHIRA, PALLIPPURAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. JUMILA BEEVI S., VARUVILAKKOM, KARIYIL, KAZHAKUTTAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. AMEENA,MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN JUMILA BEEVI.S., VARUVILAKKOM, KARIYIL, KAZHAKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. AL-AMEEN,MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN JUMILA BEEVI S., VARUVILAKKOM, KARIYIL, KAZHAKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 4. ASHA J., MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN JUMILA BEEVI S., VARUVILAKKOM, KARIYIL, KAZHAKUTTOM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------- R.P.F.C. NO. 257 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This revision is preferred by the husband against the order of maintenance granted in favour of the wife and children in M.C.No.185/2005 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The husband is aggrieved by the quantum ordered and it is contended that he is laid up and therefore, he is unable to meet the expenses as ordered by the Family Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had produced Annexure-1 along with the memorandum of revision which would indicate that he had sustained stroke which had forced him to be in the hospital and even his mobility had been affected. The said act had taken place in June, 2009 subsequent to the passing of the order. If he has lost his job or he is unable to do any work under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code he can move for variation of the maintenance order which has to be considered by the Court. Now turning to the quantum in this case, it is seen that R.P.F.C. NO. 257 OF 2009 2 whatever is asked for by the wife has been granted by the Family Court. The wife would contend that the husband is having an income of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The husband did not adduce any evidence, at the same time there are no materials to shown what basis it is arrived. No acceptable evidence is produced by her and she had not bothered to produce a solitary paper to rely on her version of his income. Just because the husband did not adduce evidence one cannot jump to the conclusion that the income is Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. Now the Family Court has ordered a total maintenance Rs.8,600/- to be paid which is asked for. Taking into consideration the entire materials, I feel that the order of maintenance can be revised and fixed as Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,500/- each to the children payable from the date of petition from 29.10.2005. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed the revised order of fixing the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to the children payable from 29.10.2005. The mother can receive the amount on behalf of the R.P.F.C. NO. 257 OF 2009 3 children. If any amount if any paid be given credit to. Parties are at liberty to move for variance when circumstances exist under Section 127 Cr.P.C. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. pm