IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 52 of 2009() --------------------- MC.180/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- MEHABOOB ALI, S/O.KASIM KHAN, 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEYARA STREET, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- 1. SAJANA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.SAIBUNEEZA, RESIDING AT C.V.HOUSE, PUDUPARIYARAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. D/O.MEHABOOB ALI, AGED YEAR,(MINOR) REP. BY MOTHER). ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C FOR R1&R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 52 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.180/07. The wife and child moved an application for maintenance and the court below granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.750/- to the the child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard and perused. It is seen from the order of the Family Court that the wife has spoken about the ill-treatment meted out to her in the matrimonial home and the Family Court held that it inspires confidence and therefore accepted the evidence regarding the reason for separate living and found accordingly. The Family Court also found that under ordinary conditions woman may not live separately from the husband without probable cause. I do not want to disturb that finding as there is no illegality in the said finding. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 52 OF 2009 -:2:- 3. Now turning to the quantum. The wife would contend that the husband is having much resources but the Family Court found that version cannot be accepted and there is nothing to show that he is running any unit regarding manufacture and sale of electrical goods. The Family Court accepted the version of the husband, that is, he is working as an employee in a motor garage where scraping work is done but it did not accept the income of Rs.600/- spoken to by the husband. So from the materials it has to held that no convincing materials are available to fix the income of the person. The law envisages some amount of proof in such cases. At the same time as held by the Family Court it may not be correct to hold that he is only getting an income of Rs.600/- per week under the present wage set up. The child is aged 1½ years at the time of filing of the petition. I feel in this matter some leniency can be shown towards amount awarded to the child and maintenance ordered to the wife can be retained as such. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 52 OF 2009 -:3:- In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by retaining the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and reducing the quantum of maintenance payable to the child from Rs.750/- to Rs.500/- payable from the date of petition. The mother is authorised to draw the amount on behalf of the children. The amount, if any, paid or deposited be withdrawn by the wife and child. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-