IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 68 of 2006() --------------------- MC.677/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- ALAVI, S/O.AHAMMED (LATE), CHALILKIZHEKKETHALAPPIL HOUSE, IURMBUZHI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. ANEESA, D/O.KUTTOOSA, MULLAPPALLY HOUSE, PONMALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AHAMMED - MINOR, REP. BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT - MOTHER GUARDIAN. ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB FOR R1 & R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ============== R.P.F.(C).No.68 OF 2006 =================== Dated this the 5th day of January 2010. JUDGMENT The revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.677/2004. The revision petitioner married the 1st respondent and a child is born, the paternity of which is disputed. The case of the wife is to the effect that after marriage she became pregnant and in the seventh month of pregnancy, she was taken to her house and that she had given birth to a child and husband and the members of his family never looked after them. On the contra, husband would contend on the very next day of the marriage, the wife was found to be weak and on examination, she was found to be pregnant but she refused to go to the doctor. The child was given birth to after 9 months and 16 days after the marriage. DNA test was conducted and it was found that the revision petitioner is the biological father of the child. The mental cruelty inflicted by the husband towards his wife is demonstrated by his conduct. 2. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered regarding the marriage, paternity as well as the reasonable ground to live separately. 3. The learned counsel, however, strongly argues before me that the R.P.F.(C).No.68 OF 2006 2 court below has allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the child. The wife would depose that the husband is employed in Gulf, running a bakery having an income of Rs.50,000/- and that he is having five items of movable property fetching an income of Rs.20,000/-. On the contra, the husband would contend that he has no such extend of property and he does not have the income as stated by the wife. In this type of cases, in the absence of specific evidence the court may not be able to arrive at a decision correctly regarding the financial capacity. It has to be remembered that things are not safe as it were and there is a decline in earning from abroad and so many persons are also sent back. So one can not come to a conclusion regarding the income, merely for the reason that one person is living abroad. But one has to presume that he will have a reasonable income. Therefore, taking in to consideration, all those aspects, I feel that some amount can be reduced and therefore, I re-fix the maintenance at the rate of Rs.18,00/- for the wife and Rs.1,200/- for the child, making it a total sum of Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.3,500/-. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns R.P.F.(C).No.68 OF 2006 3