IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 24 of 2005() --------------------- MC.183/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER:- ----------------------------------------------- USHA, W/O.SABU THOMAS, AGED 34 YEARS, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, VELLAD AMSOM, KARUVANCHAL. BY ADV. MR. GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER & STATE:- ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SABU THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 41 YEARS, THACHETTU HOUSE, VAYATTUPARAMBA, P.O.VAYATTUPARAMBA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.24 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.No.183/2003. The wife and children moved an application for maintenance against the husband and the family court rejected the prayer of the wife and granted maintenance of Rs.750/= to the child. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant maintenance, the wife has come up in revision before this Court. 2. Heard. The short point that arises for determination is regarding the correctness of the order passed by the family court. A civil suit has been instituted by the husband and his father against the wife, children and in-laws and an application was moved for injunction to restrain them from alienating the property and cutting and removing the rubber trees. The trial court granted an order of injunction but the appellate court modified the order of the trial court whereby it restrained the wife and members of her family from cutting and removing the trees but permitted them to : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.24 OF 2005 take usufructs from the rubber trees standing in the property. Dissatisfied with the same, a writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the husband and his father as W.P.(C)No.28502/2004. The court found that there is no error committed by the Subordinate Judge and confirmed the said order. 3. So by virtue of the said order it is clear that the wife and child are taking income from the property in the suit. They are in the form of rubber trees and therefore the family court held that since the wife is capable of taking and is taking income from the rubber trees, she can maintain herself and therefore refused to grant order of maintenance. 4. I cannot find any error of jurisdiction or illegality which requires interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. But it is made clear that when change of circumstance will arise, it will entitle the parties to move for variance of the order under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.24 OF 2005 : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.24 OF 2005