IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 465 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.128/2008 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- P.S.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O SANKARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, MELETHIL HOUSE, PERADIKKUNNU, THACHANGODE, NAGARIPPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- RADHA, D/O LATE KRISHNAN, THANIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUNCHAPPADAM P.O., PUNCHAPPADAM AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, MR.R.SREEHARI. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.12939/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.465/2009 DISMISSED 26/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 465 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.128/08 whereby the maintenance ordered on 12.3.87 as Rs.75/- has been enhanced to Rs.1,000/-. 2. Heard the counsel for both the sides. An amount of Rs.1,000/- fixed after 22 years cannot be said to be exceedingly high. But the point to be considered is what is the avocation of the revision petitioner and whether he has got the means to pay the amount. At the time of the original petition he was working at the Immaculate Conception Convent in Coimbatore and even at that point of time the Family Court fixed the maintenance at Rs.75/- only. Now it is submitted by the revision petitioner that he is no more an employee of that Convent. There is nothing on record to show that he is unwell to do any work. He has remarried and is having wife and R.P.(F.C.) NO. 465 OF 2009 -:2:- children in his second wife as well. He is a person who is maintaining them also because it is seen that the revision petitioner has no case that the second wife is earning. But there are no materials to show what is the real work he is doing and what is the maximum income derived from his work. It has also to be remembered that this man has also become almost 65 years of age now therefore may not be able to do very hard work. So taking into consideration all these aspects at the same time also the necessity of the wife I feel the quantum that can be fixed as maintenance can be Rs.750/- instead of Rs.1,000/-. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is partly allowed and the enhanced maintenance is fixed at Rs.750/- per month payable from the date of petition namely 21.4.2008 by the revision petitioner to the maintenance petitioner. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-