IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 RPFC.No. 113 of 2009() -------------------------- MC.365/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- JOLLY @ THOMAS, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, THACHETTU HOUSE, VENNALA.P.O BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR SMT.N.N.GIRIJA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. JANCY, W/O. JOLLY @ THOMAS, AGED 31 YEARS, NETTAYIKODATHU HOUSE, PONNURUNNI, GRAMINAVAYANASALA ROAD, VYTTILA.P.O, COCHIN-19. 2. JESFIN, AGED 3 YEA4RS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY GUARIAN, MOTHER JANCY, W/O. JOLLY @ THOMAS. ADV. SRI.P.V.BIJUMON FOR R1-2 SMT.DIJI.K.DASAN FOR R1-2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 113 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Ernakulam in MC.365/06. The wife and child aged 6 months on the date of petition are the maintenance petitioners. It is the contention of the wife that the husband is a lucrative gold businessman and therefore she is entitled to a maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.3,000/- towards the child. According to her she has been living separately on account of the cruelty meted out to her by the husband. On the contra the husband would contend that he has not ill-treated her. He has moved an application before the Court below for restitution of conjugal rights and it is pending. Now the Court below has found that she is entitled to maintenance and has ordered to pay Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 113 OF 2009 -:2:- 2. The evidence available in this case is the oral testimony of PW1 and RW1 and Exts.B1 to B4. Exts.B1 to B3 are the income return submitted by the husband and the Court below has stated it has really nothing to do with the case. I am afraid that such an approach may not be correct. Similarly Passbook does not show much income. The evidence of PW1 show that she was badly treated by the husband is the reason why she is living separately. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before the Court below. I do not want to interfere with the finding on the entitlement of maintenance to the wife unless there are change of circumstances when a considered order is passed by the Family Court on the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. So far as the quantum is concerned really no materials are available and I do not know how the Court below fixed the maintenance at Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively. There is no data or details to fix it. Therefore the matter requires interference. Therefore I set aside the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 113 OF 2009 -:3:- order passed by the Court below and direct the petitioner herein to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to the wife and child till final disposal of the matter and the Family Court can permit both parties to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and re-fix the quantum on the basis of the materials in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 23.4.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-