IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 20 of 2010() --------------------- MC.116/2009 of Family Court, KASARAGOD. .................... REV.PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- HUSSAIN BANDIOD, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.ALI ABA, BANDIYOD ADUKKAM, P.O.MANGALPADY, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. SAHIRA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. K.M.HASSAINAR, PERUVAD KADAPPURAM, P.O.KUMBALA, KASARGOD. 2. ZAINABATH THASHEEMA, AGED 8 YEARS, D/O.SAHIRA, -DO-, -DO-. 3. JABAR ALI, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.SAHIRA, -DO-, -DO-. 4. MOHIYUDHEEN JAZEER, AGED 1 YEAR S/O.SAHIRA, -DO-, -DO-, (RESPONDENTS 2-4 ARE MINORS AND THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT.) ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1-4 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 20 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.116/09. The wife and three minor children moved an application for maintenance and the Family Court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the wife, Rs.750/- to the first child and Rs.500/- each to the 2nd and 3rd child. It is against that decision the revision is preferred by the husband. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would strongly contend before me that there is no reason for separate living. It is only the reluctance of the wife to look after the parents that had led to this situation. The wife on the other hand would contend that even after the 2nd delivery she was taken home only after three years and just after the birth of the 3rd child, the revision petitioner again married and that has made her return to the matrimonial home an impossibility. The man did not show even the bear patience R.P.(F.C.) NO. 20 OF 2010 -:2:- and ultimately the matrimonial life is ruptured. The evidence of wife appears to be reasonable for separate living. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned it is submitted that the husband was away at gulf and now it is contended that he is the owner cum driver of a goods vehicle. There is no definite evidence to prove the income of the person. It has to be stated the necessity of the wife and children has also to be considered along with the income of the husband so as to strike a balance so that unnecessary hardship is avoided for both. Considering those principles I feel this is a fit case where some leniency can be shown. Therefore refixing the quantum of maintenance at Rs.1,300/- to the wife, Rs.700/- to the first child and Rs.400/- each to the 2nd and 3rd children would be just. Needless to say if there is any change of circumstance they may move the Court for appropriate further reliefs. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance by refixing the quantum of maintenance at Rs.1,300/- to the wife, Rs.700/- to the first child and R.P.(F.C.) NO. 20 OF 2010 -:3:- Rs.400/- each to the 2nd and 3rd children payable from the date of order. The amount due to the minors can be drawn by the mother. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be given credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-