IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 64 of 2006() --------------------- MC.30/2003 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- SAJITH KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. SREENIVASAN, PANDIYADATH THAZHAM HOUSE, KOTTOOLI POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.V. SHYAMALA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. CHATHU, RAM NIVAS, KUDAMOLI PARAMBIL, NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM, ARAKKINAR POST, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. SANIKA, AGED 3 AND HALF YEARS, D/O. SAJITH KUMAR, OF DO. DO. 3. SAMEESHA, AGED 2 YEARS, D/O. DO., RESIDING AT DO. DO., (MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER T.V. SHYAMALA, 1ST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN FOR R1&2 SRI.P.A.HARISH FOR R1 & 2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN CRL.M.A.2545/2006 DISMISSED. 28/10/2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.(FC) No.64 of 2006 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Raman, J. This is a revision against an order awarding maintenance to the wife and two children, by the Family Court, Kozhikode. The parties are Hindus. The marriage was solemnised in August 1999. In the wedlock two children were born. Both of them are female, now aged 9 years and 5 years. As against the claim for maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- each to the children, the court below awarded an amount of Rs.1,500/- as maintenance to the wife and Rs.800/- each to the children. The appellant would contend that the amount as awarded by the court below is not based on the evidence adduced and is excessive. 2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 3. Even though the appellant contended that his only income is Rs.1,000/- per month, no appreciable evidence is adduced in this regard. Admittedly, the appellant is young and healthy. Even taking a sum of Rs.150/- as his daily earnings, his monthly earning would come to Rs.4,500/-. Setting apart one third for his personal expenses, the balance RPFC 64/2006 -2- available will be Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that what has been awarded towards maintenance is on a higher side. However, in the absence of any positive evidence regarding the income, we can only make an assessment of the income for the limited purpose of awarding the maintenance in this case. Though the respondent would contend that the monthly earning of the appellant is Rs.10,000/-, no evidence as such is adduced. 4. Accordingly, we find that the awarding of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- as against the wife is not liable to be interfered with. However, in the case of the children, it is reduced to Rs.750/- each. With the slight modification as above, the revision petition is disposed of. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/