IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 421 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.640/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- FALALUL ABID, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SHOWKATH, KARIYAMKUNNU VEEDU, PULIKKALANGADI, VAZHIKKADAVU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ----------------------------------- 1. NASEELA P., AGED 19 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, PATHARI VEEDU, P.O.VAZHIKKADAVU. 2. MOHAMMED NABEEL, AGED 4 1/2 YEARS, S/O. FALALUL ABID (MINOR) 3. FATHIMA NIDA, AGED 2 YEARS, D/O. FALALUL ABID (MINOR), (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM FOR R1 TO 3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 421 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.640/06. The respondent therein was directed to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the wife, Rs.800/- to the first child and Rs.700/- to the 2nd child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. This case also projects the decline in the moral standard in the society. A girl aged 14 years had connection with a boy, a close relative and gave birth to a child. A case for rape is pending meanwhile the girl moved an application for maintenance and the paternity of the child was disputed. Both of them had undergone DNA test and it proved that the revision petitioner is the biological father of the first child. Thereafter wisdom prevailed on the parties, they settled the matter and got married. After the marriage 2nd child is born and now the revision petitioner has married another lady and R.P.(F.C.) NO. 421 OF 2007 -:2:- is living separately. So the trouble the girl has undergone reflects the attitude of the revision petitioner towards her and therefore she is entitled to live separately. 3. Now turning to the quantum. The husband would contend that he is only an ordinary skilled worker in relation to wells whereas the wife would contend that he is a member of an orchestra team having a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. The only admitted fact by the husband is that he used to attend the programme but it may not be sufficient evidence to hold that he is part and parcel of that team. The learned Family Court judge considered his status as a labourer or a coolie as the case may be and had ordered maintenance. As the real income is not proved and as the income of the husband has to be taken into consideration for fixing a reasonable maintenance I feel a balance can be struck by slightly reducing the amount so as to allow both of them to derive the benefits of law. I direct him to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,250/- to the wife, Rs.700/- to the first child and Rs.600/- to the 2nd child. All payable from R.P.(F.C.) NO. 421 OF 2007 -:3:- the date of filing of the petition. The mother is authorised to receive the amount on behalf of the minor children. If any amount is deposited, let that be disbursed to the petitioners and the balance be realized. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-