IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 150 of 2005() -------------------------------- MC.177/2003 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT ---------------------- DINESHKUMAR.B., S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREEMANGALAM HOUSE, KUNNATHARA P.O., ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN MR.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. GEETHA, D/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.MEMUNDA, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. VISHNUDATH, AGED 6 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY IST RESPONDENT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.V.G.ARUN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.150 OF 2005 ====================== Dated this the 1st day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.177/2003. There were about four matrimonial matters that had been tried together and now this Court is only concerned about the order in the maintenance case. The wife was directed to be paid Rs.1,750/- per month and Rs.1,000/- per month to the child. It is against that decision the revision is filed by the husband. The Family Court considered the question in the angle that since it has granted a decree of divorce the wife is entitled to get maintenance. The Family Court also opined that the couples are living separately from 2001 onwards. There is real difference of opinion between them. So I do not want to go in to details for the reason it may affect the other cases on merits. Therefore I conferring myself to the question of R.P.(F.C) No.150 OF 2005 2 maintenance. I am only considering the quantum. The revision petitioner is an employee in Sales Tax Department having a monthly salary of Rs. 6,664/-. Document A1 would show that his carry home salary is only Rs. 3,215/- and deduction is Rs.3,449/-. (Of this Rs.1,000/- towards GPF account and Rs.1,335/- is dues to the Co-operative Society.) The Family Court found that GPF is a saving for the person but it has also to be remembered that there is a statutory mandate to have at least 6% of the basic pay to be credited into the GPF account. So irrespective of the willingness of the person said amount will have to be given to the Provident Fund. The Family Court did not take not of that situation and therefore I feel a slight modification has to be done. I refix the maintenance to the wife at Rs.1,500/- per month and child Rs.800/- per month payable from the date of the order. In the result, this RPFC is disposed by modifying the order of maintenance at Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.800/- to the child per month payable from the date of the order. R.P.(F.C) No.150 OF 2005 3 Any amount paid as interim maintenance or deposited in the course of proceedings shall be given credit and balance need be paid. If any amount is still due, certainly the petitioner can move an application to get out of the period of limitation but coercive proceedings be taken only after 4 months and let the amount due be paid in 4 monthly instalments. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns