IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 264 of 2007() -------------------------------- MC.165/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S) /RESPONDENT --------------------------- MUSTHAFA C.K., S/O T.V.ABDUL KHADER, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE, P.O.MANIYAT, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. HAJARA C.H., D/O L.K.MOIDU, LAYINAKALILLATH, CHAYOTH, P.O.CHOYAMKODE, KARIMTHALAM, KASARGOD DIST. 2. MUFASIRA, AGED 7 YEARS,(MINOR), D/O HAJARA, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE FIRST RESPONDENT HAJARA, DO. DO. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.7285/2007 IN RPFC. NO.264/2007 DISMISSED 27/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.264 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred by the dissatisfied husband against the order of maintenance ordered by the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.165/2005. The family court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/= to the wife and Rs.1,000/= to the child. It has come out in evidence that the husband had married another lady and he is living with her. He has no intention to take back his first wife as well. 2. The family court observed that materials are not absolute to prove separate living but at the same time it has found that the husband is not in a mood to take back the wife and put a final decision on the same. Therefore, one cannot rule out the evidence tendered by the wife for her separate living. Therefore I affirm that finding. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned, the husband is said to be employed in Gulf having an income of Rs.20,000/=. But materials are not forthcoming to prove his income. The : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.264 OF 2007 court below found that since he had remarried, one cannot believe that he is jobless. Whatever it may be, he is a strong man, young in age and capable of earning and therefore considering those facts and circumstances, I feel that maintenance of Rs.1,500/= can be ordered to the wife and Rs.1,000/= to the child. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance passed by the court below and by fixing the maintenance of Rs.1,500/= to the wife and Rs.1,000/= to the child both payable from 21.7.2005 and the mother is permitted to collect the amount on behalf of the minor children. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.264 OF 2007