IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 44 of 2006() --------------------- MC.274/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ P.R.CHANDRAN, S/O.PERUMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, PAZHUPATHOOR P.O., SULTHANBATHERY, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, MR.K.B.SAJEESH, MR.P.GOPINATH, MR.C.S.SUNIL, SMT.C.G.PREETHA, MR.M.PRAVEESH. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. RATNAVALLI, D/O.BALAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOOTTAKKIL, MANGAD AMSOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. ARUN CHANDRAN, 14 YEARS, S/O.RATNAVALLI, DO.DO. 3. ATHIRA, 12 YEARS, D/O.RATNAVALLAI, DO.DO (PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER/ GUARDIAN 1ST PETITIONER) BY ADV. MR.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CM.APPLN.NO.1536/2006 IN RP(FC) NO.44/2006 DISMISSED 1/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.44 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.274/2004. The court below ordered the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,250/= to the wife and Rs.800/= each to the children. It is against that decision, the revision has been preferred by the husband. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that there has been no valid reason for the wife to live separately and that the husband is not having any avocation and the wife is having tailoring shop and therefore the quantum awarded is excessive. 3. I had perused the evidence of PW1 and RW1. The wife had deposed before the court that there had been consistent cruelty by the husband to the wife and that it made her leave the matrimonial home. It is also deposed by her that due to intervention of the mediators she had gone and again the same thing continued and therefore she had left the matrimonial home. Her evidence does not : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.44 OF 2006 appear to be incorrect and even in the chief examination, the husband had not given any reason for the wife to go away from him. It is submitted by him that the wife was prepared to look after the mother, aged 70 years and when it is compared with the facts spoken to by the wife her version appears to be more acceptable. 4. The next question is regarding the quantum. According to the wife, the husband was engaged in 'Anert' having a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/=. The husband had produced documents to show that he had lost that job now. It is also his evidence that the wife's father is having a tailoring shop and she is also having a tailoring shop by name Miss World. No convincing documents are produced to establish the same. The husband is a man who is healthy and capable and therefore it is his bounden duty to look after his wife and children. 5. Considering the entire materials available before me, I am inclined to fix maintenance to the wife at Rs.1,000/= and to the children at the rate of Rs.700/= each. I am informed that the first child has attained : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.44 OF 2006 majority. Naturally the order of maintenance will cease to apply if he attains majority. 6. Therefore the revision is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance at Rs.1,000/= to the wife and Rs.700/= to the children with effect from the date of petition. If the first son had attained majority, the right to pay maintenance will cease to exist from that date. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.44 OF 2006