IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 170 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.122/2002 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- SHAJAN VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.V.T.VARGHESE, VETTIKKAL HOUSE, PONTHAPUZHA.P.O, MANIMALA, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY J.MONIPPALLY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. JEEMOL.T.ABRAHAM, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.ABRAHAM, THEVARUKUNNEL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM.P.O, VELLILAPPALLY KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THERESIA, D/O.JEEMOL, AGED 5 YEARS, THEVARUKUNNEL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM.P.O, VELLILAPPALLY KARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH FOR R1 & R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 170 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in M.C.122/02. The mother and daughter moved an application for maintenance against the revision petitioner and the Court below ordered a maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to the mother and child. It is against that decision the revision petitioner has come up in revision. 2. A perusal of the records would reveal that the couple got married in 1999 and a child had been born to them in the wedlock. It is the case of the wife that the husband used to ill-treat her and was not even looking after her properly and on account of the cruelty she has to leave the matrimonial home. 3. On the other hand the husband would contend the wife was never a disciplined lady and she had problems of epilepsy and she was taking medicines and further that she R.P.(F.C.) NO. 170 OF 2005 -:2:- was not looking after the child. A perusal of the evidence would reveal that the husband is not happy with the wife and there is nothing to show regarding her ailment and therefore it has to be stated that the wife has reason to live separately from the husband. 4. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned it is seen that the wife was working before marriage at Changanassery. There is no evidence to show that she is having any job now. The husband has got only 10 cents of land and it is submitted that the parents are having 50 cents of rubber plantation. Equally it is also seen that the wife's father is also having some rubber plantations. The possible income of the husband from the property is only with respect to 10 cents and there is no much evidence to prove what will be his approximate income. Therefore taking into consideration the age of the person and the other attending circumstances justice can be met by directing the husband to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- to the wife and Rs.700/- to the child from 27.9.2002. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 170 OF 2005 -:3:- In the result R.P.(F.C.) is partly allowed and a revised order of maintenance is passed by fixing the maintenance payable to the wife at Rs.800/- and that of the child at Rs.700/- payable from 27.9.2002. The mother is authorised to receive the amount on behalf of the children. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-