IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 463 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.375/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ MUHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O.KOMU, MACHINGAL HOUSE, ALUNGAL PARAMBA, A.R.NAGAR P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. UMMU SALMA @ SALMA, D/O.VETTIYATTIL MOOSA KUTTY, MACHINGAL HOUSE, ALUNGAL PARAMBA, A.R.NAGAR P.O., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED SHANOOS (MINOR), AGED 9 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT. 3. NIDA SHERIN (MINOR), AGED 5 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT. 4. MUHAMMED SABITH, 1 YEAR (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) FOR R1 TO R4 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.12827 OF 2009 IN RPFC NO.463/2009 DISMISSED 22.3.2010 SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.463 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.375/2009. The wife and children were ordered to be paid maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/=, Rs.1,200/=, Rs.800/= and Rs.500/= per month respectively. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. This matter was tried along with another original petition. That is not the subject matter of this appeal and therefore I am confining my finding to the quantum ordered in the maintenance case. 3. It is projected that the husband is a person working abroad having a monthly income of Rs.50,000/=.The husband on the other hand would contend that he is not having such income, even he disputes his status as an NRI person. But materials would show that he is reasonably employed because the parties were keeping decent standards of life. : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.463 OF 2009 The family court entered into the finding on the basis that he is an NRI person and therefore held that he would be having reasonable amount. It is also submitted that the evidence did show that the person is having a salary of Rs.26,000/=. 4. If he is working abroad, necessarily there will be equal expenditure also for the man. Considering the status of the person and also the quantum awarded in this case, I feel that little leniency can be shown with respect to the maintenance granted to the wife by reducing it from Rs.4,000/= to Rs.3,000/= and by retaining the amount of maintenance granted to the children. 5. Therefore the revision petition is disposed of by refixing the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/= to the wife, Rs.1,200/= to the first child, Rs.800/= to the second child and Rs.500/= to the third child per month. The mother can receive the amount on behalf of the minor children. If any amount is paid or deposited, that shall be : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.463 OF 2009 given credit to. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.463 OF 2009