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. 138 of 2005() --------------------------------- MC.420/2004 of THE FAMILY COURT, MANJERI. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS ----------------------------------- 1. NARIMADAKKAL SAFIA, AGED 37, D/O.KUNHI MOIDU MUSALIAR, KAVATHIKKALAM, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NOUFAL, AGED 17 (MINOR), DO. DO. 3. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 17 (MINOR), DO. DO. 4. SAFINUSSA, AGED 3 1/2 (MINOR), DO. DO. REVISION PETITIONERS 2-4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST REVISION PETITONER. BY ADV. MR.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- KOTTAKKULAM KUNHI MOIDEEN, AGED 42, S/O.MOHAMMADALI, OTHUKKUNGAL P.O., MUTTATHUR AMSOM, DESOM, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 138 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.420/04. By virtue of the said order the wife was directed to be paid Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance, two sons, Rs.1,000/- each and one son at Rs.750/-. Since one of the sons attained majority the liability was restricted upto 29.1.2005. It is against that decision the wife and children had come up in revision. 2. A perusal of the order would reveal that the respondent has not disclosed everything before court. But that does not mean that the income derived from the person is fabulous. It is submitted by him that he was only a coolie worker but the Court found him to be working abroad for a considerable number of years. There is no material to support the fact regarding his income. He had 65 cents of land and a Maruthi car. That had also been taken into R.P.(F.C.) NO. 138 OF 2005 -:2:- consideration and the court has ordered him to pay maintenance of Rs.4,250/- to all together. It cannot be said to be a lower amount especially in the back drop of non availability of any convincing evidence to prove the income of the person. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Family Court as there is no perversity, illegality or irregularity which requires interference by this court exercising revisional jurisdiction and hence the R.P.(F.C.) is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-