IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 136 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.736/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------- DR.T.SURESHKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.B.THANKAPPAN, "NANMA", I.T.C.14/573(1), POTHUJANAM LINE, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.R.S.KALKURA, MR.M.S.KALESH, MR.HARISH GOPINATH, MR.V.VINAY MENON, SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY, MR.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM), SMT.M.C.SHIJIMOL. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ 1. K.K.PARIJATHAM, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.DR.T.SURESHKUMAR, KUTTAPURA HOUSE, KERALASSERY (PO), PALAKKAD. 2. NANDITHA, AGED 9 ½ YEARS (MINOR), D/O.PARIJATHAM (REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, GUARDIAN IST PETITIONER, K.K.PARIJATHAM). R1 & R2 BY MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.T.C.SURESH MENON, MR.JIBU P THOMAS, MR.P.S.APPU, MR.A.R.NIMOD, MR.C.A.ANOOP. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.3742/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.136/2009 DISMISSED 16/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.136 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 16th 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.736/2006. The wife and the minor child of the revision petitioner moved an application for maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/= and Rs.4,000/= respectively and the family court ordered the entire amount asked for and it is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents. The learned young counsel for the respondents vociferously submits that the family court has only arrived at a proper decision whereas the counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that it requires interference. 3. At the outset I may like to point out the purport of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Section 125 starts with the question when a wife is unable to maintain herself. Then Section 125 proceeds on the basis that capacity of the husband also has to be taken into consideration. The evidence available before : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.136 OF 2009 the court would show that the husband is a good Paediatrician who was running two nursing homes and he had more than the income of Rs.2,20,000/= per annum. At the same time, it is stated that the wife has no resources. She was working as a Captain in the Army and her evidence is to the effect that she had retired from the service and at the time of retirement, she had got the benefits as well. She would contend that she had given all the income to the husband. That is not a matter which would seriously worry this Court. 4. The child was aged only 6 ½ years at the time of filing of the petition and the family court felt that it should give Rs.4,000/= as maintenance to the child. What is the real necessity also has to be taken into consideration. Just because the husband is having better resources it shall not be the sole criterion to grant the maintenance demanded for. The court has to strike in between and the balance has to be maintained. When it is done, I feel that this is an eminently fit case where some interference is necessary and therefore I modify the order of the family court by : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.136 OF 2009 reducing the maintenance to the wife at Rs.4,000/= and that of the child at Rs.3,000/= payable from the date of petition. 5. In the result, the revision is partly allowed and the maintenance ordered is fixed at Rs.4,000/= per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/= per month to the child payable from the date of petition. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.136 OF 2009