IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 429 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.50/2009 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER IN R.P.(FC)- RESPONDENT IN MC: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SAITHALI HAJI, S/O MUHAMMED, AGED 56, RESIDING AT CHEMBAN KUZHIYIL HOUSE, PAYIPULLU, THUVVOOR P.O., PIN-679 327, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND SON, SHAHEES BABU, IN DO. DO. (APPOINTED AS PER ORDERIN I.A.NO.502 OF 2009) BY ADVS. MR.K.JAYAKUMAR, MR.P.B.KRISHNAN, MR.R.SURAJ KUMAR, SMT.GEETHA P.MENON, MR.N.AJITH, MR.P.M.NEELAKANDAN. RESPONDENT IN R.P.(F.C) - PETITIONER IN MC: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBAIRA, RESIDING AT KUNDIL HOUSE, THUVOOR P.O. PIN 679 327, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.VENUGOPAL THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.12027/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.429/2009 DISMISSED 25/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No. 429 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.50/2009. The second wife moved an application for maintenance and the family court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/= to be paid to the wife from the date of petition. It is against that, the revision is preferred by the husband. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The learned young counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that in the backdrop of the medical records as well as the other documents, it can be seen that the husband is totally laid up and he cannot be saddled with the liability to maintain the wife. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that details of the property itself is sufficient to show that he is capable of maintaining his wife. 3. I had requested the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to give a copy of the document which is marked : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No. 429 OF 2009 as Ext.A4 series. It has to be stated that the present revision petitioner is a second executant to a partition deed entered into between him and his brother in the year 2003. The document is registered as Document No.3191/2003. As per the said document, items 4 to 7 in the partition deed are set apart to the share of the present revision petitioner. Items 4 and 5 are described as parambas having an extent of 2 acres 54 ½ cents. Items 6 and 7 are cultivable paddy lands having an extent of 2 acres 2 ¼ cents. So as per the partition deed, the revision petitioner is having an extent of 4 acres 56 ¾ cents. A perusal of the encumbrance certificate would reveal that there were three purchases and one sale and one sale again re-conveyed to the family of the revision petitioner and those transactions are in between 1994 - 1997. Even going by the partition deed of the year 2003, he is having an extent of 4 acres 56 ¾ cents of property. Therefore it has to be held that he is a man with sufficient means. It has to be stated that against the order for past maintenance, a matrimonial appeal 955/2009 was filed before this Court and it has been dismissed by the : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No. 429 OF 2009 court. Now it is also argued that this man is totally laid up. 4. Mere documents without the help of any medical evidence to show the total incapacity of the man cannot be accepted by any competent court of law that too, for depriving the maintenance. It has to be stated that there are landed properties and is being looked after by his son. So taking into consideration all these aspects and the extent of the property involved, I am of the view that the maintenance of Rs.1,500/= granted by the family court is reasonable which by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl