IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 99 of 2004() --------------------- MC.291/1999 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ A.R.SUNDARESAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.PARAYIL RAVEENDRA MENON, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, P.O.VARAKKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. LATHA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.VAZHELI MADHAVAN NAIR, KANJOOR PONNAMPIL VEETTIL, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 4 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER, IST RESPONDENT LATHA. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.K.A.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010 ALONG WITH RP(FC) NO.173 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.9113/04 IN RP(FC) NO.99/2004 DISMISSED 4/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C.)No.99 OF 2004 & R.P.(F.C.)No.173 OF 2004 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T RP(FC)No.99/2004 is filed by the husband challenging the order of maintenance including the quantum and the other revision is preferred by the wife and child challenging the quantum of maintenance. The court below considered the matter and held that the wife is entitled to get at the rate of Rs.600/= per mensum and the child Rs.400/= per mensum and directed that the amount to be paid from the date of the petition. 2. The learned counsel for the husband would contend that there was a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife and therefore the wife is not entitled to maintenance from the date of the petition. It is also contended that the quantum awarded is excessive and has to be reduced. On the other hand, the wife would contend that the husband was working in a reputed company and was having a sizeable income of Rs.10,000/= : 2 : R.P.(F.C.)No.99 OF 2004 & R.P.(F.C.)No.173 OF 2004 atlest per month and therefore the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. 3. The learned Family Court Judge had considered this aspect in paras 23 and 24 of the judgment. The court found that there was an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights which had been subsequently set aside by the court. Restitution decree was only an ex parte decree. The court had set aside the decree at a different point of time. When it is set aside it goes completely from the inception and it cannot have any compartmentalization at that juncture. So, a mere ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights would not permit the husband not to pay the maintenance. Therefore, I do not find any mistake committed by the court below in granting maintenance from the date of the petition. 4. Now turning to the quantum. An amount of Rs.600/= to the wife and Rs.400/= to the child had been granted as maintenance by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore the amount : 3 : R.P.(F.C.)No.99 OF 2004 & R.P.(F.C.)No.173 OF 2004 awarded also cannot be interfered with. 5. Turning to the question of enhancement by wife. It has to be stated that the very prayer in the petition is only to grant Rs.500/= each to the wife and child. The petition is filed as early as in 1999. Taking note of the situation during that relevant period, the court has awarded the maintenance at the rates mentioned in the order. The court had applied its mind and had increased the quantum by Rs.100/= to the wife than the one claimed and had given Rs.400/= to the child. It cannot be held that the court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or perversely which requires interference at the hands of this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, I find that both these revisions lack merit and therefore they are dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C.)No.99 OF 2004 & R.P.(F.C.)No.173 OF 2004 : 5 : R.P.(F.C.)No.99 OF 2004 & R.P.(F.C.)No.173 OF 2004