IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 370 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.675/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- P.ABDULLA, S/O. PAREDANMUHAMMED, 'NAJMAS', K.K.ROAD, CHEMMAD, TIRURANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- 1. SAHIRA, D/O. ABBAS, W/O. ABDULLA, THAVAKKAL HOUSE, THANA P.O., KANNUR. 2. SHAS, AGED 12 YEARS (MINOR), S/O. ABDULLA. 3. SALMAN, AGED 6 YEARS (MINOR), S/O. ABDULLA. MINOR PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, 1ST PETITIONER. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 370 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.675/06. The wife and two children moved an application for maintenance and the Family Court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- to the wife and Rs.800/- to the first child and Rs.500/- to the 2nd child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard. Admittedly the husband is a person who has married twice and both the matrimonial relationships are in subsistence. It is the legal and moral responsibility of a husband to maintain both wives properly. Therefore the question that may have to be considered is regarding the quantum. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that after his return from the gulf country he has not been keeping good health and has produced documents from Malabar Institute of Medical R.P.(F.C.) NO. 370 OF 2007 -:2:- Sciences and also documents to prove his Tuberculosis. The Court below found that though these documents are pressed into service it is not proved and therefore the Court below negatived the contention that he is incapable of earning. A perusal of the order would reveal that he was a man in the gulf country for very long years. He is having a house of his own and it is also extracted in paragraph 11 that on production of the Bank extracts of his N.R.I. Account he admitted that recently he had a balance of Rs.2 lakhs in that account. The Court below also found that the husband was residing in Madras doing business. When he is a person who had married twice, without resources he would not have ventured and therefore he is a person who is capable to making some income. When in this back ground the maintenance awarded is considered it can be seen that the wife is only granted a maintenance of Rs.1,200/- and the children together Rs.1,300/-. It cannot be held that the said amount is arbitrary or excess specially the Court has to take into consideration the present day escalation of price and the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 370 OF 2007 -:3:- cost of living and in that back drop I cannot hold that the quantum requires interference. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-