IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 362 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.323/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- USHA KUMARI, D/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, AGED 35 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KRISHNA VIHAR, KODIYERI AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ K.SREENIVASAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KUTTYKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, T.NO.486244, AREA MANAGER, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD., 89 MIDC SATPUR, NASIC - 7, NOW RESIDING AT THIRUMANGALATH HOUSE, IRIGANNUR AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, P.O.IRINGANNUR, VIA THUNERI. ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.323/03. The wife moved an application against the husband for maintenance and the Family Court has awarded a maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,400/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum the wife has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. The reasons for separate living appears to be that there is a complaint for the husband that the wife is suffering from some skin disease. The Family Court found that they are separated for the last 12 years and held that there is sufficient reason for the wife to live separately. So far a the quantum is concerned the husband is working in Mahindra and Mahindra and Ext.X1 is produced to show his income. His total salary comes to Rs.15,070/- and the deduction given is Rs.11,565/- thus making a carry home R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 OF 2007 -:2:- salary of Rs.3,505/- as per Ext.X1. It is true that the husband can attempt to defeat the interest of the wife by incurring more loan and attempting to repay it through salary. But here it appears the loan really taken is for the purpose of house construction and one cannot blame a person just because there is a maintenance case pending or to be filed that he cannot construct a house. But at the same time he cannot take umbrella under that pretext and contend for the position that his carry home salary is meager and so not to direct him to pay maintenance. Now the fact is that his carry home salary is Rs.3,505/-. He is a person who is working at Nasik certainly he has to run the establishment and he as also to incur expenses for his day-today affairs. It has also come up in evidence that he has a mother to look after. So striking a balance between the necessity of the wife and the capacity of the husband I feel a maintenance can be fixed at Rs.1,600/- per month instead of Rs.1,400/-. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 OF 2007 -:3:- Therefore the revision is disposed of by modifying the rate of maintenance from Rs.1,400/- to Rs.1,600/- payable from the date of petition. If any amount is already paid or deposited that shall be given credit to. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-