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. 45 of 2009() --------------------- MC.417/2007 of FAMILYCOURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S): COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BYJU, S/O.K.SIVANUNNI, H.NO.12/12, SIVALAYAM, NEDUNGODE, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. HEMA, D/O.K.R.SIVADASAN, W/O.BYJUSIVANUNNI, KAVIL HOUSE, MOOCHIKUNNIL, THEKKEDESOM P.O., NALLEPPILLI, CHITTUR TALUK. 2. ANOSHKA, D/O.BYJU SIVANUNNI, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN/MOTHER THE FIRST PETITIONER. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.1327/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.45/2009 DISMISSED 17/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No. 45 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 17th 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.417/2007 whereby the husband was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/= to the wife and Rs.5,000/= to the child per month respectively. It was an ex parte order. The family court fixed the quantum on the basis that a Captain attached to Merchant Navy must be having a handsome salary and therefore in view of that the court granted Rs.8,000/= to the wife and Rs.5,000/= to the child. It has to be stated that the claim itself is for a very high amount of Rs. 45,000/=. 2. The court should have taken precaution to arrive at a proper figure, but not even a scrap of paper is produced to show the income of the man. That does not mean that the husband is a person without any means. It is his duty to appear before the court and help the court in deciding the matter properly. So, I am inclined to grant an opportunity and my observations in this judgment shall not be a guiding : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No. 45 OF 2009 factor to decide the quantum. 3. In the result, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the family court for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to both sides to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The amount of Rs. One lakh in deposit, if not already withdrawn, be withdrawn by the wife and child and let the husband namely the revision petitioner to pay at the rate of Rs.6,000/= (consolidated) per month from today till a final decision is taken in the matter and let the matter be disposed of as early as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of first appearance of the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the family court on 19.4.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No. 45 OF 2009