IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 389 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.240/2001 OF FAMILY COURT. ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ K.E.KUNJUMOHAMMED, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, OVUNGHA PARAMBIL, NEAR KUTTAMASSERY JUNCTION, THOTTAUMUGHAM KARA, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------- FATHIMA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED, VATHISSARY VEETTIL, NEAR KUTTAMASSERY JUNCTION, KUTTAMASSERY KARA, THOTTUMUGHAM, ALUVA TALUK. ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR.G. FOR R.1 SMT.ANUPAMA JOHNY FOR R.1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 389 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.240/01. The petitioner in the M.C. was awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as maintenance from the date of petition and it is against that decision the revision is preferred. 2. It is stated that the main crux of the matter is based on some documents alleged to be executed between the parties. Annexure A is an agreement whereby there was an understanding that the document created in favour of the revision petitioner by the children to be reconveyed to the petitioner in the M.C. and further that she will not claim any maintenance. 3. Counsel for the respondent reported no instructions. Therefore a fresh issue was issued and in spite of the notice the wife had not entered appearance before the Court. R.P(F.C.) NO. 389 OF 2007 -:2:- 4. At the out set it has to be stated a statutory right cannot be taken away by merely entering into an agreement between the parties. It appears that the M.C. petitioner disappeared from the scene and it is contended that thinking that she is dead her children executed document of release in favour of the father. Subsequently she appears and problems starts. It is at that junction Annexure A agreement is executed. Annexure B is a document executed by the said children which is characterized as a revocation. How far a document can be revoked when it is executed without the junction of the person in favour of whom it is executed is a matter for consideration. Just because the children had revoked the document the right transferred in favour of the father already by them cannot be affected by the document otherwise it is agreed upon by all the parties. Therefore that contention may not be of much help for the petitioner in this case. Even if for argument that is accepted the extend of property covered by the document is hardly three cents of property with a building therein. By any stretch of imagination it R.P(F.C.) NO. 389 OF 2007 -:3:- cannot be held that the income from that property will satisfy the need of a person for one year. So on that ground also it cannot be accepted. 5. Relating to the quantum, it is submitted that the husband is sick and some documents are produced to show that he is an asthmatic patient. It is submitted that his age is about 60 and some leniency has to be shown. It is also the case that on account of disappearance of the lady he had remarried and that he has to maintain that family as well. Therefore taking note of the entire materials available I think little leniency can be shown by reducing the quantum of maintenance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.750/-. In the result the R.P.(F.C) is partly allowed and the maintenance is refixed as Rs.750/- per month payable by the husband to the wife from the date of petition. If any amount is paid, that shall be given credit to. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge.