IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 122 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.165/2005 of Family Court, Thodupuzha. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- SUGATHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, (NOW RESIDING AT ALYVILA HOUSE, VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. AMBIKA.T.T, AGED 35 YEARS, KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA. 2. AJITH KUMAR, S/O.SUGATHAN, AGED 7 YEARS,REP. BY AMBIKA.T.T,FIRST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT FOR R1&2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ========================== R.P.(F.C) No. 122 of 2006 ========================== Dated this the 17th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thodupuzha in M.C 165/05. The wife and son of revision petitioner moved an application for maintenance and the court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- each to the wife and child and revision is preferred against that order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is contended before me that the quantum awarded is in excess. So far as separate living is concerned, the revision petitioner has taken a very strong stand, i.e., not prepared to take back his wife as seen extracted in para 7 of the order. So the right to live separately stands established. 3. Now regarding the quantum, the husband would contend that wife have two acres of land and income derived from therein. The wife had totally denied R.P.(F.C) No. 122 of 2006 2 the same. The husband would submit that it is a non patta land and there is no registration to prove the same. Except for the mere ipsi dixit there is no other materials to support that contention of the husband. Rightly, the Family Court did not accept the same. So far as 9 cents of land is concerned, the wife would depose that it was purchased in her name by her parents and it has been disposed of about 6 years back and after discharging the liability to the bank etc, the balance had been given to the parents. Whatever it may be the sale has taken place about 6 years back that too of 9 cents. There is nothing produced to establish that the wife is having any amount with her. 4. The husband is a Health Inspector working in the Government of Kerala. He has not produced salary certificate. The wife contended that he has got a salary of Rs.12,000/-. The husband would depose that his total salary is Rs.9,000/- and after deduction, the carry home salary is Rs.4,495/-. According to him, he has to pay Rs.1,000/- as rent also. Except the mere statement, the facts which R.P.(F.C) No. 122 of 2006 3 should be positively proved by the documents are not produced before the court at all. One can get more deduction from the salary, if one takes loan or makes better investment on the provident fund amount. There is no bar in doing the same, but it shall not be a bar for the wife to claim reasonable amount of maintenance. The child is school going child and both the husband and wife belong to decent and respectable families and taking into consideration those aspects, I am inclined to hold that the order of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each per mensem by any stretch of imagination can not said to be on the higher side. Therefore the revision lacks merits and same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns