IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 422 of 2007() M.C.NO.718/2005 DATED 2.3.2006 OF FAMILY COURT, MANJERI PETITIONER/RESPONDENT MOHAMMED KUTTY S/O.VEERANKUTTY, AGED 37 YEARS, MANNILTHODI HOUSE, THACHARAPARAMBU, AROOR, PULIKKA, ERANAD TALUK,PULIKKAL AMSOM. BY ADV. MR.P.SANJAY RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS 1. CHOORAPPARA RASIYABI, D/O. SULAIMAN, AGED 29 YEARS KOLABALAM, OMANOOR, P.O. CHEEKODE, ERNAKD TALUK,CHEEKODE DESOM. 2. HARSHAN, AGED 10 YEARS, 3. HARSHIDA, AGED 8 YEARS, 4. MURSHIDA, AGED 6 YEARS (MINOR PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, THE 1ST PETITIONER.) ADV. MR.SAJU.S.A THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(FC).No.422 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 9th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No. 718 /2005. The revision petitioner is the husband against whom order of enhancement of maintenance has been ordered at the rate of Rs.700/- to the wife and Rs.600/- each to three children. It is against that decision the husband who has remained ex parte before the Court has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Originally,the order was passed by the Family Court in the year 2001 i.e., on 12.11.2001. An application for enhancement was made at the rate of Rs,1,500. The Court found in the affidavit that the revision petitioner is a conductor by profession who is having an income of Rs.5,000/- per month. He contends that he is only a casual labourer. Even under the said circumstances as per present R.P.(FC).No.422 OF 2007 2 wage set up, the amount of Rs.5,000/- as income cannot said to be arbitrarily or excessive. So also ordering maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- to the wife and Rs.600/- each to the child also cannot be said to be on the higher side. They are extremely reasonable. The Court has strick the balance correctly and fixed the amounts. Therefore, the revision lacks merits and dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns