IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 RPFC.No. 66 of 2007 ------------------------------------ MC.224/2004 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE ....................................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ MALAYIL SUBAIR, MALAYIL HOUSE, PONMERI AMSOM, PARAMBIL DESOM, VILLIAPPALLY P.O., VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. PULEEKANDIYIL RASIYA, PULEEKANDIYIL HOUSE, KUMMANKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED, DO. DO. 3. MUHASIN, DO. DO. 4. MAJEED, DO. DO. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT) ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 66 OF 2007 -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 ORDER --------- Revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.224 of 2004 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode. The respondents who are the wife and three children of the revision petitioner filed the above petition u/s.125 Cr.PC claiming separate maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month for the 1st respondent and at the rate of Rs. 750/- each for respondents 2 to 4 with a plea that the respondents were thrown out of the matrimonial home after treating them with cruelty and they were devoid of means for their maintenance and that the revision petitioner was employed as a photographer in a studio at Fujira in U.A.E and getting a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. In his counter statement the revision petitioner denied the contention that he is getting Rs. 50,000/- as monthly salary and contended that he lost the job abroad and that the first respondent is having her own income and that she is not entitled to be maintained by the revision petitioner. The trial court after due enquiry allowed the petition as prayed for. R.P.(FC) No. 66 OF 2007 2 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition is filed. 4. It is now submitted that the revision petitioner had married again and so there is no possibility for the respondents joining with the revision petitioner and living together. Therefore, the revision petitioner cannot escape from the liability of giving separate maintenance to the respondents in the event they are unable to maintain themselves. Though the revision petitioner would contend that the first respondent is employed and she is having her own income, there is no supporting evidence. There is no case that the other respondents have got any means of their own. Hence it is to be found that respondents are devoid of means for their maintenance. 5. Though it is contended by the respondents that the revision petitioner is employed in a studio in U.A.E and is getting Rs. 50,000/- per month there is no evidence to that effect other than the oral evidence of the 1st respondent. According to the revision petitioner he is not employed. However it had to be inferred that the revision petitioner is having some job and having some income or he would not have dared to marry again. R.P.(FC) No. 66 OF 2007 3 There is no evidence as to the exact income of the revision petitioner. The trial court inferred that the revision petitioner had attractive income. What is attractive income ? remains not proved. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents belong to an ordinary family. Taking into account of the value of the essential commodities, the rate of inflation and the standard of parties, I find that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the first respondent is little higher, whereas the maintenance awarded to the respondents 2 to 4 are just and appropriate. Taking into account that respondents are residing together, I find that maintenance to the first respondent at the rate of Rs. 1250/- would be just and proper and that it would be within the means of the respondents. In the result the revision petition is allowed in part. The maintenance awarded to the first respondent is reduced to Rs.1250/-. In all other respects the order impugned is confirmed. P.S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE PKK