IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 446 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2007 IN OP.679 & 680/2006 IN MC.685/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAJAN, 41 YEARS, S/O.GANAPATHI, THRIPPANACHI HOUSE, THANDUPARAKKAL, VANDOOR POST. BY ADVS. MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, SMT.S.SMITHA (PARAKKAL). RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. RANJINI A.K., D/O.RAMAN, AREAKKODAN HOUSE, ODIYANCHOLA P.O., EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 331. 2. RAHNA, 12 YEARS, (MINOR) 3. RAHUL 3 YEARS (MINOR) (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT) R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.P.BABU FOR R1-3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.11135/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.446/2007 DISMISSED 2/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 446 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.685/06. Two minor children had been granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- and Rs.800/- respectively and it is challenging that quantum the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. The question is only regarding the quantum. The wife would submit that the husband is a contractor making a daily income of Rs.500/- whereas the husband would contend that he is only a coolie who does not earn much income. The Court on a guess work find that his income would be at the rate of Rs.175/- per day even if he is a coolie and on the basis of the same granted the order of maintenance. There is nothing to prove that he is a contractor. There is no materials even to prove what is his income. But he is an able bodied man who has married and has got children. It is his responsibility to R.P.(F.C.) NO. 446 OF 2007 -:2:- look after his children. He cannot plead technicality and get away from maintaining the children who depend on him. It is true that he has to look after his mother as well. So really considering the facts of the case and the present price set up a reasonable amount has to be awarded at the same time S.125 Cr.P.C. envisages a situation where the Court has to take note of the capacity to pay. Therefore a balance has to be struck. So I am inclined to reduce the told maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,800/-(i.e.1000+800). In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of modifying the quantum of maintenance to the first child from Rs.1,200/- to Rs.1,000/- and that of the 2nd child is retained at Rs.800/-. The mother is entitled to draw the amount on behalf of the children. The amount already paid or deposited shall be taken credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-