IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 RPFC.No. 107 of 2009() -------------------------------- MC.117/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANNAMMA @ SUNU, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O CHACKO JOSEPH, ETHAKKATTUVEETTIL, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. 2. JITHU, (MINOR), AGED 5 YEARS, S/O. KURIAKOSE, REPRESENTED BY 1ST PETITIONER ANNAMMA @ SUNU, D/O. CHACKO JOSEPH, ETHAKKATTUVEETTIL, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.S.A.SHERLY RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- 1. KURIAKOSE @ RAJU, S/O IPE YOHANNAN, PUTHUSSERY VEETTIL, POOTHOKKUZHI BHAGOM, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK AND VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R1 BY ADV. MR.R.PARTHASARATHY R1 BY ADV. MR.ROY GEORGE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P(F.C)No. 107 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Kottayam in M.C. 117/2005. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, the petitioners have come up in revision. The petitioners claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively. The Family Court allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each. It was contended before the court below that the wife was living separately without reasonable cause and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The court on analysis of CPW1, CPW2 and PW1 arrived at a decision that the wife has been treated with cruelty and there is reasonable cause for separate residence. 2. I do not find any error in the said finding. The crucial question in the revision is regarding the quantum. It is the case of the wife that the husband is a building construction worker and also have 38 cents of rubber tapping land. According to the respondent he is a coolie getting daily income of Rs. 110/-. He has admitted that he along with his brother jointly owns 38 cents R.P(F.C) 107/2009 -2- of land and he would submit that he is not tapping rubber. As the ownership of 38 cents is admitted nobody will allow such a land to lie fallow under the ordinary circumstances. There is no case in cross examination that there are no rubber trees at all. Considering the wage structure in the present set up as well as the factum of joint ownership of 38 cents with the brother which is capable of yielding income and also the fact that he is a man who is physically strong, I feel enhancement is called for in this case. He had stated before the court that when the wife and child was living with him he used to pay Rs. 250/- as fees towards the U.K.G. Class. So it is clear that the child is being educated in a proper school. It is true that the capacity of the husband also has to be considered for arriving at a decision. Considering the present wage set up as well as the ownership of the land, I feel it is a fit case were the quantum can be enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- to the wife and Rs. 600/- to the child from the date of petition. With this modification the R.P(F.C) is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm