IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 444 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.213/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- UMA SANKAR VALSAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. M.D. VALSAN, ENGINEER, ROBERT BOSECH INDIA LIMITED, 123, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE, PIN-560 095. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & STATE: --------------------------------------------- 1. SUDHANNYA K.N., D/O.K.N.DAMODARAN, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT "SUMADHURA", KADIROOR P.O., ARIKKAMPOYIL DESOM,THALASSERY, PIN-670642. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN FOR R1 SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN FOR R1 SMT.THUSHARA.V FOR R1 SRI.BIJU J.THADIKKAL FOR R1 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BENNY VARGHESE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 444 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.213/06. Two highly qualified couples are now fighting before the Court of law for the maintenance by the wife and denial by the other. The couple got married on 8.11.2004 and gradually difference of opinion started and ultimately they had started living separately and the wife has moved the Court for maintenance. 2. A reading of the order would show that the parties have contested the matter very vociferously and the wife would contend that the life with the husband was not very happy and she felt that he is a sadist and a cruel husband and that her conditions were not safe. The instances of cruelty had been spoken out and the materials are very clear to the effect that there was no smooth and cordial relationship between them and it is also seen that the wife had moved an application u/s 498-A IPC for cruelty. So taking stock of the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 444 OF 2007 -:2:- entire situations the Family Court felt that there is reasonable ground for living separately and it is based on facts which I do not find is vitiated by any perversity or misappreciation of evidence so as to interfere within the revisional jurisdiction. 3. The next question is the quantum. The husband is a well employed person in Bangalore. He is owning a flat and a car. According to him his income is Rs.37,000/- which takes in Rs.4,000/- as reimbursement bills. Or in other words his income is about Rs.33,000/-. Whereas the contention of the wife is that the husband is getting a salary of more than Rs.20 lakhs per year and in the marriage publication Rs.10 lakhs is shown as his income but the Court also did not accept the same and so what is available before Court is the salary obtained by the husband from the Company which runs to about Rs.33,000/-. 4. It can be seen that the husband had availed a loan for Rs.15 lakhs from Bank of Baroda and he is repaying it at the rate of Rs.16,725/- per month for a period of 180 months. He has to pay Rs.1,000/- as maintenance amount for the flat. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 444 OF 2007 -:3:- He has taken LIC as well. He has to pay property tax. It is true that those shall not be taken as a ground to reduce the quantum of maintenance but can a person be found fault with for acquiring a flat in city like Bangalore especially when he is employed in I.T. sector and is expected to keep certain standard of living and reputation. It is a common knowledge that when a person occupies a flat, a maintenance allowance for the flat of Rs.1,000/- cannot be treated as high at all. Similarly one cannot avoid payment of property tax. He has also to travel in a car and has to maintain a reasonable living condition in reference to his post. There will be other expenses just like income tax, compulsory savings which are statutory etc. So if these are all taken into consideration there will not be much balance left with the man. I say this only to hold that it is equally important that u/s 125 Cr.P.C. it has to be taken into consideration the income of the husband to fix the quantum. The necessity of the wife and the capacity of the husband are twin factors and a balance has to be struck in between the two to fix the quantum so that unnecessary R.P.(F.C.) NO. 444 OF 2007 -:4:- harassment of the husband can be averted and the wife is saved from destitution. There is no point in asking the husband to pay an unreasonable amount and face the penal consequences of being in jail. Therefore taking stock of the entire circumstances and the materials available I am inclined to fix the maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife from the date of petition. 5. Therefore the R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by modifying the quantum of maintenance to the wife from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month payable from the date of petition. If any amount is already paid or deposited that shall be given credit to and the balance need to be paid. If the parties want to settle the matter, I make it clear that this order shall not stand in the way of any reasonable or good settlement. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-