IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 36 of 2010() --------------------- MC.27/2008 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- THULASIDHARAN,S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS,SREEJALAYAM,CMC 31,CHERTHALA. BY ADVS. SMT.MANEESHA KUMAR, SMT.P.A.PRIYA. RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SHINE,W/O.THULASIDHARAN,AGED 38 YEARS, SREEJALAYAM,CHERTHALA,NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENPARAMBU,KANICHUKULANGARA,CHERTHALA. 2. THUSHARA (MINOR)D/O.THULASIDHARAN, AGED 16 YEARS,SREEJALAYAM,CHERTHALA,NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENPARAMBU,KANICHUKULANGARA,CHERTHALA (REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO 1) 3. ATHULYA,(MINOR),D/O.THULASIDHARAN, AGED 15 YEARS,SEEJALAYAM,CHERTHALA,NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENPARAMBU,KANICHUKULANGARA,CHERTHALA (REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO 1 ). 4. NANDANA,(MINOR),D/O.THULASIDHARAN, SREEJALAYAM,AGED 3 YEARS,CHERTHALA,NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENPARAMBU,KANICHUKULANGARA,CHERTHALA (REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO 1 ). R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.K.RAMANATHAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.MA.NOS.923/2010 7 1729/2010 IN RP(FC) NO.36/2010 DISMISSED 30/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.36 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Alappuzha granting maintenance to the children at the rate of Rs.1,000/= each to petitioners 2 and 3 and Rs.500/= to the 4th petitioner. The father has come up in revision challenging the quantum of maintenance. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The learned counsel strongly harps upon two points for consideration. The first point is that the mother is employed and she is having a monthly income of Rs.3,000/= and it is the joint responsibility of the parents to maintain the children and therefore the court has to take into consideration that aspect. In support of her argument, she had placed a decision of the Apex Court reported in Padmaja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma (2004 (4) SCC 266). In that case, the Apex Court held that when the father and mother are earning, both are bound to contribute to maintenance of their children in proportion to their income. : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.36 OF 2010 It also held that the law does not enjoin that father is exclusively responsible regardless of mother being affluent. So income of the mother also is a factor that has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the quantum to be paid by the father. 3. Now turning to the quantum. The husband would project a case that though he is a plumber by profession, his monthly income is only Rs.1,500/= and therefore he cannot be saddled with the large liability. It is the common knowledge that persons doing plumbing works are very much in demand and one cannot accept the version that he gets only Rs.1,500/=per month. It has also to be remembered that a document from the Village Officer was produced wherein the revision petitioner's projected income at Rs.2,400/= per annum but fixed at Rs.18,000/= by the Village Officer. So this shows his intention behind in moving an application for fixing the income. One cannot find any materials on the basis of which the village officer has fixed his income at Rs.18,000/= per year. So I feel that the family court was correct in not accepting the said document. It : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.36 OF 2010 has come out in evidence that there was an accident and the revision petitioner was injured and he had undergone some treatment. It is certain that it may affect his working capacity for some time. 4. So considering the fact that the mother is already having an income of Rs.3,000/= and the husband who was met with an accident has some difficulty as well and also the fact that the first two children are studying in higher classes, in order to avoid difficulty to all concerned, some leniency can be shown so far as it relates to maintenance to the second and third petitioners in MC are concerned by fixing Rs.800/= each and retaining the maintenance amount of last child at Rs.500/=. 5. Therefore the revision petition is disposed of by refixing the quantum of maintenance at Rs.800/= each to petitioners 2 and 3 in MC and Rs.500/= to the 4th petitioner per month payable from the date of petition. The mother can receive the amount on behalf of the minors. If any amount is paid or deposited, that shall be given credit to. : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.36 OF 2010 Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.36 OF 2010