IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 RPFC.No. 75 of 2009 ----------------------------- MC.NO.430/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD, DTD. 21/10/2008. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------- P.K. VENUGOPALAN,S/O. KOCHU EZHUTHASSAN, “SREEVALSAM”, 30/91, CHIKKANALAT OUT, KALYAN NAGAR P.O., HENNUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SMT.P.MAYA. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JYOYTHI C.C. W/O. P.K. VENUGOPALAN, D/O. C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ALANKAR, SHORNUR MAIN ROAD, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. ROHITH (MINOR), S/O. JYOTHI, -DO- -DO 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.K.B.ARUNKUMAR, R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK. THIS REV. PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C).No.75 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.430 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. That is a petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondents 1 and 2 are the wife and son of the revision petitioner. According to the respondents, the revision petitioner ill-treated the first respondent both physically and mentally and the respondents were sent out of the matrimonial home and that they have no independent means for their maintenance. Whereas the revision petitioner was doing computer programming and system consultancy in Bangalore and was getting Rs.60,000/- per month. In addition to that he has agricultural income of Rs.20,000/- per year. 2. The revision petitioner denied the ill treatment and contented that the first respondent was fond of luxurious life and she was a nagging wife. She was disrespectful, disobedient and abusive and later she developed intimacy with one Ratheesh and R.P.(F.C).No.75 of 2009 2 that she had been running a shop where she operates photostat, lamination, telephone booth and selling agricultural implements and thus she had been getting Rs.5,000/- per month and that the the revision petitioner is school leaving certificate holder doing data entry and the income was less than Rs.4,000/- per month. 3. During the enquiry, the first respondent was examined as PW.1. The revision petitioner was examined as RW.1. On appraisal of the evidence, the lower court arrived a finding that since the revision petitioner is admittedly staying at Bangalore where the cost of living is much higher, he had been getting a very attractive income. On that assumption the revision petitioner was ordered to pay a monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the first respondent and at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the second respondent. Assailing the above order, this revision petition was preferred. 4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the order impugned. It is revealed that the revision petitioner had preferred a petition for divorce and it is still pending. So the question of parties joining together does not arise now. R.P.(F.C).No.75 of 2009 3 5. Regarding the means of the respondents there is oath against oath. However there is no independent evidence on record to show that respondents 1 and 2 are having any means for their maintenance. Though the revision petitioner has a case that the 1st respondent is running a shop, no independent or reliable evidence was let in to that effect. So the revision petitioner is bound to maintain them. 6. In the evidence it is revealed that the revision petitioner is a data entry operator. He is only a diploma holder and is not very highly qualified. It is also revealed that the revision petitioner had been residing at Bangalore in a rented building. He had to meet the rent of the building. There is no proof that the parties belong to a high class family. So it has to be concluded that the parties belong to middle class family. According to the revision petitioner he is getting an annual income of Rs.60,000/-. That figure does not appear to be true. He may be getting a little more. But there is no proof to show that, his income is sufficient enough to enable him to pay the amount awarded by the trial court. The respondents are not R.P.(F.C).No.75 of 2009 4 entitled to claim for any luxury. Though the revision petitioner submitted that the second respondent is studying in a CBSE school and has to pay fees, there is no supporting evidence regarding the school or the requirement. In the above circumstance having taken into account of the social status of the parties, the value of essential commodities and day to day requirements I find that a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the first respondent and Rs.1,000/- to the second respondent would be a sufficient amount for their maintenance. The amount awarded by the trial court is on a very higher side. There is nothing on record to show that the revision petitioner could afford anything more than the amount mentioned above. Hence the amount awarded by the lower court requires reduction. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. While confirming the order granting maintenance, the quantum is reduced to Rs.1,500/- to the first respondent and Rs.1,000/- to the second respondent. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.