IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 129 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.500/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O. MOIDEEN, MANNILTHODIKA HOUSE, CHENDAPPURAYA, P.O.A.R. NAGAR. BY ADV. MR.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): 1 TO 5:PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. AKKARAPARAMBAN SAFIYA, D/O. AKKARAPARAMBAN AHAMEDKUTTY, P.O. VILAYIL, VILAYIL AMSOM, DESOM. 2. MUHAMMED ABDUL BASITH, 9 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL GAFOOR, DO. DO. 3. MUHAMMED BASRIL, 7 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL GAFOOR, DO. DO. 4. BASIN ASLAM, 5 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL GAFOOR, DO. DO. 5. BASILA THASNIM, 3 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL GAFOOR, DO. DO. (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). BY ADVS. MR.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY , MR.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY, MR.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF, MR.AZAD RAHMAN. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.5848/2006 IN RP(FC) NO.129/2006 DISMISSED 11/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.129 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.500/2005. A 27 year old wife with four children aged 8,6,4 and 2 years approached the Family Court against the respondent for maintenance. 2. I cannot state that the amount as such ordered by the Family Court is high. But the question to be considered is whether the husband can afford to pay it. Admittedly the husband is in Chennai. The wife would say that he is running a cool bar, but the said contention is denied by the husband and he contends that he is only a salesman. He had also produced documents before the Family Court to show that he had undergone a surgery and it appears that he had some kidney problems. Details of a prolonged treatment are also seen in the case. Though it is contended that the respondent had undergone a kidney surgery, the document does not support that contention. The husband has to maintain the wife and four small children. The husband says : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.129 OF 2006 that he is a salesman in Chennai with Rs.1,200/= as salary. It may be a ridiculous contention for the reason that one may not be able to survive with that amount in Chennai. But there is no evidence to show that what is the approximate income. The wife would say that it is Rs.10,000/= and the husband would say that it is only Rs.1,200/=. The money order coupon available would show that in between Rs.500-600 was sent by the husband to the wife. That itself shows that he is not a man with large income. 3. Therefore considering the capacity of that person, I reschedule the maintenance amount. Justice can be met by ordering the husband to pay Rs.400/= to the wife and Rs.400/= each to the second and third petitioners and Rs.350/= each to petitioners 4 and 5 making a consolidated sum of Rs.1,900/=. So, the order of the Family Court is modified accordingly refixing the quantum of maintenance as Rs.400/= to the wife and Rs.400/= each to petitioners 2 and 3 and Rs.350/= each to petitioners 4 and 5. I make it clear that when circumstances improve, Section 127 will come to the rescue and aid of the wife and children. : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.129 OF 2006 Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.129 OF 2006