IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 56 of 2007() ------------------------------- MC.576/2005 of THE FAMILY COUT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER (S) /RESPONDENT: ---------------------------- BALAKRISHNAN, 53 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, VADAKKI VEETIL PARAMBIL VEEDU, NARAYANI NIVAS, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. SANTHA BALAKRISHNAN, 42 YEARS, D/O.NARAYANAN, NARAYANI NIVAS, CALICUT ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. JITHIN, 14 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT, DO. DO. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.DEVIDAS.U.K THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO.1636/2007 IN RPFC NO.56/2007 DISMISSED 27/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.56 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.576/2005. The revision petitioner aggrieved by the order of the family court directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/= to the wife and Rs.600/= to the child has come up in revision before this court. 2. Heard. The wife is attributed with the charge of adultery which does not stand established and that itself is sufficient for a wife to live separately from the husband. Therefore entitlement of the wife to get maintenance cannot be disputed. 3. Now turning to the quantum. The husband was an employee in Gulf for almost two decades and according to him, with that fund he had purchased 6 ½ cents of property in the name of the wife and she is residing therein. The wife would contend that it was with the money of her father that the property is purchased and therefore the said : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.56 OF 2007 averment is incorrect. I am informed that a civil litigation is pending with respect to the same. What ever it may be, for the time being, there is a residence for the wife to live with the child. 4. The husband would strongly contend that he has almost become disabled and he has to depend on his brothers for his survival. According to him, he had undergone two instances of heard attack and he is surviving on medicine. It is true that documents are produced to show regarding suffering of heart attack and he was advised not to do hard work. It has come out in evidence that the husband did purchase 25 cents of land in Ottapalam and he had also owned 3 auto rickshaws. It was his case that he had sold two auto rickshaws and was using the other auto rickshaw and now on account of the incapacity, he is not owning anything. So far as the landed properties are concerned he would depose that he has sold it. It has come out in evidence that he is having other landed property left out by his father. These are all factors which would indicate that he is a man with some means. By this time the son would have : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.56 OF 2007 become major and the liability would cease when he attains majority. The wife is only ordered to be paid a sum of Rs.700/= and the child only Rs.600/=. Considering the escalation in cost and the difficulty to survive, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the amount is on the higher side. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.56 OF 2007