IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 339 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.36/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- PARAKKADAN FAID, S/O. IBRAHIM, PARAKKADAN HOUSE, VALLUVAMBRAM AMSOM, MANIPARAMBA DESOM, VALLUVAMBARAM P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR, SMT.M.T.SHEEBA. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. P.P. SABNA, D/O. UMMAR, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLOOR AMSOM DESOM, KARAUVAMBRAM P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMAD DILSHAD, 3 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST REPONDENT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.K.P.MUJEEB. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 339 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.MA.NO.8751/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.339/2009 DISMISSED 08/02/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.339 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.36/2009. The wife and a small child had moved an application for maintenance and the family court has ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/= to the wife and Rs.600/= to the child. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. The main question is only regarding the quantum. I had gone through the evidence of RW1, the husband. His evidence itself would reveal that he is not financially so weak. In his cross examination it has been brought out that he is having two mobile phones. Though he claims that one of them belongs to his friend, he has not proved it. He had also stated that he used to purchase cloths for Rs.500/= per month to the wife and Rs.100/= to the child. He also admits that at least he will get an income of Rs.200/= per day. He had further stated that he does not know what is the extent of the property his father is having. He would also : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.339 OF 2009 submit that there are coconuts and areacanuts derivable from the property but he does not know the quantum. 3. So an over all reading of the entire evidence would reveal that he is a man living affluently and he was also looking after his family at the time of happiness also. Considering the present necessity and escalation of price under any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the maintenance ordered is on the higher side and it is also stated that the husband is also capable of making payment to the wife and child. The revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.339 OF 2009