IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 331 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.533/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- JIJO JOSEPH, S/O. P.J.JOSEPH, POOVATHIKKAL VEEDU, THAVALAM P.O.,MANNARKKAD VIA., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. BINDU JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. V.M. JOSEPH, VAYALUNGAL VEEDU, KALKUND P.O., KARUVARAKUND, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ANU JOSEPH, AGED 9 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY 1ST RSPONDENT, -DO- -DO-. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.CHANDRASEKHAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.8668/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.331/2007 DISMISSED 11/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.331 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 11th 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.533/2006. The family Court ordered the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/= to the wife and Rs.1,300/= to the daughter. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. Along with this, case there was also a case for divorce which had been granted by the court below. There was also a case for return of ornaments as well as for past maintenance. 2. I am informed that matters are pending in appeal against those orders before the Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the parties had taken me through the evidence and at this stage, I do not propose to interfere with the finding regarding right to live separately and claim maintenance. Now the question that is projected is that the husband is having a habit of sending letters to the wife informing about his properties as well as ownership of the cinema theater etc and when those documents are produced, : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.331 OF 2007 he washes of his hands and would contend before the court that he is not having even one cent of property. The ownership over an immovable property, ownership of the cinema theater etc are matters which can be proved by producing cogent and documentary evidence as well. When a person makes it clear that he does not own any of the properties, it is desirable that in maintenance case, the finding has to be on positive materials otherwise, the very purport under Section 125 of Cr.P.C may stand defeated. I am not going probe into other matters in detail for the reason that the matter requires reconsideration regarding assets of the husband and his capacity to pay. 3. Therefore the order of maintenance passed is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the family court for fresh consideration by permitting both concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. I make it clear that interim order passed by this Court to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/= per month shall be continued to be paid till a final decision is taken in the matter. Parties are directed to : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.331 OF 2007 appear before the family Court on 19.4.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.331 OF 2007