IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 159 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.192/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------- MARAKKARAKATH SIDHIQUE, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O MOIDEEN BAVA, RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM, TANUR NAGARAM, KORMAN KADAPPURAM, CHAPPAPADI, P.O.TANUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- 1. BUSHARA, D/O ASSAINAR, PITHAPERIKKAL HOUSE, OTTUMMAL KADAPPURAM, P.O.PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THOUFEEQUE, 14 MINOR, C/O BUSHARA, D/O ASSAINAR, -DO- -DO- 3. THASREEQUE, 6 YEARS(MINOR), C/O BUSHARA, D/O ASSAINAR, -DO- -DO- MINOR REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. ADVOCATE SRI.A.S.ASHRAF AS STATE BRIEF THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 159 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.192/07. The wife and two children moved an application for maintenance and the Family Court granted 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. It has been brought to my notice that the husband moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights and it has been dismissed and further that he has contracted a second marriage. Therefore I need not dwell deep into the question of separate residence by the wife. There are allegations and counter allegations of extra marital relationship of the husband as well as the wife I leave it there in the light of this back ground. 3. Now the question is regarding the quantum. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner R.P.(F.C.) NO. 159 OF 2008 -:2:- that he is only a fisherman by profession and one cannot predict a consistent income for a fisherman. One cannot totally brush aside that contention for the reason that it depends upon so many factors such as weather and availability of fish etc. 4. So far as the first child is concerned it is submitted that the 2nd petitioner namely the son is in an orphanage and the expenses are met by the trust and only other expenses are being paid. Who has admitted him and what is the necessary expenditure and whether the wife ha s to part with any amount for his stay etc. are to be proved in order to claim maintenance on behalf of the 2nd petitioner. Husband can also prove the stay of the child in the orphanage as a guardian so that it will resolve that issue on that point and that matter requires consideration. 5. So far as the maintenance to the wife is concerned considering the irregular income of the husband I show a small leniency by fixing it at Rs.1,300/- as maintenance to the wife and Rs.700/- to the third petitioner. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 159 OF 2008 -:3:- In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of as follows. (1)The order of the Family Court is modified by fixing the maintenance of the wife at Rs.1,300/- and that of the third petitioner at Rs.700/- payable from the date of petition. (2)So far as it relates to the second petitioner in the M.C. the order is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration to find out whether the child is living in an orphanage under the guardianship of the father and whether any amount is spent by the mother for maintaining him. For the purpose both parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the Family Court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. (3) The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to and the balance need to be paid. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-