IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 202 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.92/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- JASPER A.S., JERALD, SON OF HERBERT. T., JERALAD `SULOJ', YMCA CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE I. BY ADV. MR.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSY.M.J., D/O.M.K.JOSE, DOOR NO. 16-C BLOCK, MUTTATH HOUSE, THENDRAL NAGAR, VEERAKERALAM P.O., COIMBATORE, (VADAVALLY PSL). 2. JASMIN FELICITY, D/O.OF DO. DO. MINOR 2 ½ YEARS, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN IST RESPONDENT. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.V.V.SURENDRAN, MR.P.A.HARISH. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== RP(FC) No.202 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 17th day of March 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.92 of 2004. The wife and daughter moved an application for maintenance and the court granted Rs.2,000/- as maintenance to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the daughter. It is against that order, the present revision is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Perused the order of the Family Court. It is seen from the materials available that a love marriage has ended in separation and now the parties are litigating for their existence. The court below found that the wife is not in a position to maintain herself and one cannot find fault with the said finding as there are no materials to prove otherwise. The husband was a State Champion for boxing and admittedly he has won so many prizes in boxing. Now the admitted case is that he is a totally deaf person. The court below found that he has not undergone his education in the special school maintained for deaf person and he has studied in normal school and colleges. He has been examined RP(FC) 202/2005 -:2:- before the court below with the help of an interpreter. Though documents would show deafness, it was not properly proved. It was contended that he was having a monthly income to Rs.6000/- to Rs.7,000/-. He would contend that he is an ordinary employee in a company at Bangalore and he is getting only Rs.2,000/-. So one thing is very clear that there is no concrete or even probable evidence to approximately estimate the income of the husband. He is a young man with very strong physique and a disability of shortening of hearing. The husband had produced Ext.b1 salary certificate to show that he is drawing only Rs.2,000/- per month. But, it was not accepted for the reason that it was not properly proved. So the materials are lacking and this person is working at Bangalore. He has got his parents. Virtually he has to look after himself staying in Bangalore. One can imagine the present state of affairs in a city like Bangalore and therefore without concrete evidence awarding of maintenance at a higher rate may not be possible. So, on a consideration of the entire materials, I feel this is a fit case where the amount of maintenance has to be reduced. I fix the maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.750/- with effect from 1.1.2005 and when circumstances change, certainly law enables the parties to move under Section 125(7) of the RP(FC) 202/2005 -:3:- Crl.P.C. for variance of the order. With these modifications R.P.(FC) is disposed of. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-