IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 130 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.468/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- ABDUL RAHEEM THARAYIL, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SAITHALAVI, FATHIMA HOUSE, VYDYARANGADI, RAMANATTUKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. RAJULA E.T., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.MOOSA ERANHIKAL THALAPPIL, VEERAKULATH HOUSE, THURAKAL, P.O.KONDOTTY. 2. HIBA, 2 1/2 YEARS (MINOR), (REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, IST RESPONDENT). 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 AND R2 R3 BY G.P. SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.130 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th January, 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.468 of 2007. The wife and child of the revision petitioner moved an application for maintenance and the court below granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.600/- to the child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 3. The documents relied on by the petitioner in the case Exts.A1 to A3 really does not signify the income of the husband but it relates to other parties. So far as the fixation of quantum is concerned the court below relied upon a statement given by the husband to the effect that he was regularly visiting the wife after delivery and was giving Rs.500/- or Rs.1,000/- every week and he was capable of giving the same and so on the basis of the same the court ordered maintenance. It has to be stated that these are all answers to the questions in cross examination without any precise indication of his income and therefore that 2 shall not be sole basis for arriving at a decision. But the fact that he is very young able bodied man aged 27 years and a healthy person he is bound to give reasonable maintenance to his wife and child. It is true that wife has not succeeded in proving the conduct of a fancy store at Thurakal, Kondotty by the husband. Therefore, considering the facts, his age etc., I am inclined to modify the award by reducing the maintenance of wife to a sum of Rs.1,600/- per month and Rs.600/- to the child. 4. Revision disposed of accordingly. The maintenance shall be paid from the date of petition and minors amount can be received by the mother. M.N.Krishnan, Judge cms