IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 369 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.215/2004 of FAMILY COURT , KANNUR. .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- VILANGATHUMCHAL LAXMAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, CHUZHALI AMSOM, NEDUVALOOR DESOM, KOYYOM P.O., TALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------ 1. KANNIATTU PARAMBIL LEENA, W/O. VILANGATHUMCHAL LAXMAN, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUTHAHAM AMSOM, NAREEKAMVALLY DESOM TALIPARAMBA. 2. JITHIN, AGED 15 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER. ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) FOR R1 & 2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 369 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.215/04. The Family Court by its considered order granted a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each to the wife and child and it is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Perused. A perusal of the order would reveal that really the grounds for living separately does not loom large in this case for the reason that every petition is filed for enhancement in the form of M.C. It is also seen that the husband himself has moved an application for divorce against the wife and that is pending consideration. So the husband never wants the wife to be with him. The learned Family Court Judge had considered the matter and held that there cannot be denial of maintenance to the wife and child. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned the revision petitioner is working in an officer's post having a monthly R.P.(F.C.) NO. 369 OF 2007 -:2:- emolument of Rs.16,605/- of which his carry home salary is Rs.4,639/-. It is true that he is contributing amount for the P.F. and he is repaying the amount for the loan taken from the P.F. There is also special housing loan. The amounts taken are to be repaid and it will affect the capacity to give some amount to the wife and child. But it has to be remembered that u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the law mandates maintenance has to be given to the wife and child and at the same time also cautions the Court that the capacity of the husband also has to be taken into consideration. Merely awarding unreasonable amount beyond the capacity of the husband would result in only sending the person to jail which is not the contemplation that is made u/s 125 Cr.P.C. But at the same time the wife and child also has to be looked after and therefore I feel in the fitness of things there can be a little modification by reducing the quantum of maintenance in favour of the wife to Rs.1,200/- and that of the son to Rs.1,000/-. Entitlement of the son to get maintenance shall be till he attains the age of majority. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 369 OF 2007 -:3:- 4. In the result the revision is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance in favour of the wife from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,200/- and that of the child from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,000/- that too till he attains majority. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-