IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 10 of 2005() --------------------- MC.431/2002 of Family Court, Kozhikkode. .................... REVISION PETITIONER ----------------------------------- SIDHIQUE, S/O.SAIDALAVI, KALATHINGAL VEEDU, KARASSERY P.O., MUKKAM (VIA). BY ADV. SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. MUNEERA.V.C., D/O.SAIDALAVI MUSLIYAR, POTTAN CHALIL VEEDU, KODIYATHUR P.O., MUKKAM (VIA), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SAIDU MOHAMMAD DULFUKAR, MINOR AGED 14 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ========================== R.P.(F.C) No. 10 of 2005 ========================== Dated this the 17th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C 431/2002. The wife and 1 ½ year old child moved an application for maintenance and the Family Court awarded Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.750/- to the child. It is against that decision, the present revision is filed. 2. The main dispute is only with respect to the quantum. According to the husband, the wife is having landed property and income. In turn, the wife would contend that she has no income, but the husband is having ready made business and income from the landed properties, which would come up Rs.20,000/- per month (15000+5000). The husband did not succeed in proving that the wife has any income. Equally the wife also did not prove that the husband has any ready made business, but the R.P.(F.C) No. 10 of 2005 2 husband admitted that he is a tailor by profession and he was doing tailoring. He had raised contention of ill health, but it was not supported by any document, at the stage of trial. Now along with the revision, a document is produced to show that he is undergoing treatment for vertebral collapse. What is the nature of the collapse and whether it will totally deprive in any way are not known and it may not be fair for a revisional court to probe into those aspects, which had not been produced before the trial court. He is only a 26 year old man and the wife is only 21 years. He has to maintain his wife if they were living together and the same presumption will continue as per law, when she is not with him for reasonable cause. So the liability is always there on the husband. Considering the age of the child and the little discomfort admitted to be projected by the husband, I am inclined to show little leniency by reducing the quantum of maintenance to the child from Rs.750/- to Rs.600/-. At the same time, retaining the order of maintenance of the wife at Rs.1,000/-. Therefore R.P.F.C is disposed of and the order R.P.(F.C) No. 10 of 2005 3 of the Family Court is modified by reducing the quantum of maintenance to the child from Rs.750/- to Rs.600/- and retaining the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the wife both payable from the date of petition. The mother is entitled to receive the amount on behalf of the child. If any amount is paid or deposited that shall be given credit to. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns