IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.NO. 79 of 2007() (MC.NO. 534/2005 DATED 3/10/2006 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM) REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN KOYA, KANMALIKKANAKATH HOUSE, NEAR G.M.L.P. SCHOOL, PONNANI NAGARAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT/ PETITIONERS/ STATE 1. FATHIMA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. MOOSA, KUNNATH PEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, PORUKARA, EDAPPAL P.O. 2. THESRIFA, AGED 9 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O. ABDUL KAREEM, 3. HARIS RAHMAN, AGED 8 YEARS, (MINOR), S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, 4. HUFSA NASRI, AGED 5 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O. ABDUL KAREEM, (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REP. BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.) 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON R5 BY SRI. P.P.BENNY VARGHESE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J -------------------------. R.P.F.C No.79 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.534/05. The revision petitioner has three children and wife and he is working in a school as a sweeper. The Family court awarded maintenance of Rs.800/- to the wife and Rs.400/- each to the children considering the salary of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner had challenged the order on the ground that there are no grounds to live separately and the quantum of award is excessive. The wife deposed before the court that husband has treated her with cruelty and he had abandoned her and children and therefore they are living separately. Husband on the other hand would contend that she has eloped with his brother. It is the most damaging allegation, one can make against a wife and as it is not established that itself would be a sufficient reason for the wife to live separately. It can also be seen that this physically handicapped person is involved in a criminal case for R.P.F.C No.79/07 2 beating his sister as well as wife. This would indicate that contention of wife as spoken to is correct and therefore she is entitled to claim maintenance. 2. The next point is regarding the quantum. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He is working in a school. His partial disability is 6%. His salary as per Ext.B1 is Rs.2,744/- where as he has admitted from the box that he has got Rs.3,803/- it is also to be remembered that he has to travel in two buses to reach place of work. Considering his disability, he may not be capable of doing any hard physical labour to earn money. It is true that the amount awarded by the Family Court is not excessive. But the question is whether the Family Court has taken into consideration the capacity of the husband also. It is also a relevant factor in determining the quantum. When a person is handicapped, he may have his own difficulty and he may require some medical attendance besides he has to travel in two buses to go to school and may have to spend money for the same. When he is out of his residential house he may have to take food also from out side. So taking stock of these materials as well, I feel the reasonable R.P.F.C No.79/07 3 maintenance that can be awarded in this case can be Rs.600/- to the wife and Rs.350/- each to the three children making the liability of Rs.1,650/- per mensum. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of modifying the quantum of maintenance in favour of the wife to Rs.600/- and to the children at the rate of Rs.350/- each payable from the date of petition. The mother can receive the amount on behalf of the children. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. sou.