IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 77 of 2009() --------------------- MC.415/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------------------------ C.K. RAJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, SADANAM, RESIDING AT CHOLAKUNDIL, MUNDOLLY, UMMANAZHI, PULPATTA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER : -------------------------------------- 1. RAMADEVI, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.C.K. RAJAN, PILIKKASSERY VEEDU, MUTHUKURUSSI P.O., THACHAMPARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. RAJITHKRISHNA, AGED 17 YEARS, W/O. C.K. RAJAN, 3. RAVEENA, AGED 12 YEARS, D/O. RAJAN. ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD FOR R SRI.U.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA FOR R THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 77 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.415/07. The wife and two minor children moved an application for maintenance and the Court granted a maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- each to the children. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. The husband is working as a Manager in a private chit company and according to the wife he is having a salary of Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.5,000/- as business commission. On the contra, the husband would contend that he is having a salary of Rs.2,000/- plus a commission of Rs.2,000/- making a consolidated sum of Rs.4,000/-. Besides this it is seen that he is having 35 cents of land as well. The Family Court did not R.P.(F.C.) NO. 77 OF 2009 -:2:- consider the income from the land for the purpose of fixing the maintenance but relied on it for the purpose of holding that this man was capable of purchasing 35½ cents of land. Along with the revision a document showing his salary is produced. Whatever it may be, there are no concrete materials before the Court to establish that he is getting an income of Rs.15,000/- per month as contended by the wife. But being a senior clerk in a chit company he will be having reasonable income with a good salary and commission. In the absence of concrete evidence I feel that the amount awarded appears to be on the higher side. It is a settled proposition that the necessity has to be considered along with capacity in order to fix the quantum. When it is so I feel a reasonable amount that can be granted is Rs.1,500/- to the wife Rs.1,000/- to the first child and an amount of Rs.750/- to the 2nd child. 3. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance fixing it at Rs.1,500/- to the wife, Rs.1,000/- to the first child and Rs.750/- the 2nd child payable from the date of petition. The amount due to the minors can R.P.(F.C.) NO. 77 OF 2009 -:3:- be drawn by the mother. The amount, if any, paid or deposited be withdrawn by the wife and child. If any amount is in deposit that shall be withdrawn by the wife. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-