IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 61 of 2009() --------------------- MC.122/2008 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL NAZAR A.T., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, ARIMBATHODY VEEDU, PERINTHALMANNA AMSOM, JUBILEE ROAD,PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.ARIMBATHODY MUHAMMED, ARIMBATHODY VEEDU,PERINTHALMANNA AMSOM, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SABITHA K.P., AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.LATE SAITHALIKKUTTY, KALAPPARAMBAN VEEDU, PERINTHALMANNA AMSOM, THEKKINKODE DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. IBRAHIM ANJUM, 5 YEARS, (MINOR) S/O.ABDUL NAZAR, (MINOR RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 61 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL. M.A. NO.1999/2009 IN RPFC.No. 61 OF 2009 DISMISSED SD/- 15/3/2010 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mns M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.61 OF 2009 ====================== Dated this the 15th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in MC 122/2008. The husband was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the child and it is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard. 3.The main point canvassed before me is on the quantum of maintenance. Admittedly the revision petitioner is employed abroad. The learned counsel would contend before me that he is working as a painter under a Sub Contractor and only getting meager income of Rs.8,000/- and therefore the amount awarded is high. A perusal of the order would reveal that the husband has taken the wife and they were living together in Jeddah and had come back only in 2007. In order to take the wife abroad he requires a R.P.(F.C) No.61 OF 2009 2 certain status as well as income. Therefore, the contention that he is working as a painter under the Sub Contractor can not be accepted. But the Family Court on its on conjectures and surmises fixed the income at Rs.50,000/- and ordered maintenance fixing the same as the basis. It is not correct. Therefore some leniency has to be shown in this case. After considering entire materials I feel justice can be made by reducing maintenance of wife from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000 and retaining the order of maintenance to the child at Rs.1,500/-. In the result R.P.(FC) is disposed and maintenance ordered by the court is modified and wife is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and child is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- from the date of petition. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns