IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 456 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.411/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER:RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- V.P.P.PRADEEPMENON AGED 50, JAISY ADDS, IVTH FLOOR,MANKADA TOWER, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. LATHA MENON, AGED 42, D/O.BALAKRISHNA MENON, PERUMBILAVIL (H) THIRUVALI P.O. 2. AKSHAY MENON, AGED 16 ½ , (MINOR) PERUMBILAVIL (H) THIRUVALI PO., (REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, THE FIRST RESPONDENT). 3. AMRITHA MENON, AGED 10, (MINOR) PERUMBILAVIL (H) THIRUVALI PO., (REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, THE FIRST RESPONDENT). R1 BY ADVS. MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.12664/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.456/2009 DISMISSED 19/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.456 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.411/2009. The wife moved an application for divorce and along with the children, moved another application for maintenance. The family court granted order of divorce and directed maintenance to be awarded to the children at the rate of Rs.2,000/= to the second petitioner and Rs.1,500/= to the third petitioner per month. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would strongly argue before me that the wife is an employee of a private firm and it is her co-responsibility to maintain the children and therefore the order of maintenance has to be apportioned equally between the husband and wife. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C does not envisage apportionment of maintenance, but the quantum of income of the wife can be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.456 OF 2009 quantum of maintenance. The evidence adduced in the matter would show that the wife had employment in HDFC and she has categorically asserted that on account of the misbehavior of the husband, she was forced to resign that job. So the materials available would establish that she had no avocation. No materials are forthcoming to substantiate the contention that the wife is having any employment at that point of time. 3. The family court had considered that the husband is working in a reputed firm by name M/s. CEAT Company. Though he would contend that he is only having a monthly salary of Rs.4,500/=, it is suggested that he is working in the said company for more than 18 years and now he is in the managerial capacity. The family court also found that the children are studying in unaided school where the cost of education is high. They are also aged 16 ½ and 10 years in 2009. The first boy is almost about to attain majority as well. When the children reaches the age of 16 or 17 and as they have to go for higher studies, educational expenses under the present set up mount up though the legislature : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.456 OF 2009 mandates maintenance to be given only up to the age of 18. 4. So, considering the entire backdrop of the materials available, the family court has only awarded a reasonable amount of Rs.2,000/= to the first child and Rs.1,500/= to the second child per month which cannot be said to be on the higher side. There is no illegality or irregularity which requires correction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.456 OF 2009