IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 53 of 2009() --------------------- MC.335/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ SUDHEER M.V., S/O.M.C.BHASKARAN, 34 YEARS, MADATHIL HOUSE, THACHAMKADU, PALAKKAD (NOW RESIDING AT JUBLIENT COLONY, NEW WATER TANK (NEAR) DEVI RAMAN NAGAR HALL BATVAN, NAHJALODE, MYSORE. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVI PRIYA, D/O.RAMAN, 22 YEARS, DEVIPRIYA HOUSE, JANAKI NAGAR, MUTTIKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. 2. ROSHAN, S/O.DEVIPRIYA, MINOR. (REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, GUARDIAN). R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.VINOD KUMAR.C THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.1560/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.53/2009 DISMISSED 17/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.53 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.335/2007. The family court on an application filed by the wife and son granted maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.1,750/= per month and rejected the prayer for maintenance by the wife. It is challenging the quantum that is granted to the minor child, the husband has come up in revision. 2. The short point to be considered is regarding the quantum. The material available to fix the income is not sufficient. The wife would contend that the husband married her representing himself to be an employee in L&T Company. It is submitted by the wife that she does not know what is the avocation of the husband after her departure from the matrimonial home. It has come out in evidence that the husband is a graduate in Commerce but strongly he had put forward his contention that his monthly income is Rs.1,000/=. He contended that he is looking after his : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.53 OF 2009 parents as well. How it is possible? It only gives the impression that what the husband speaks about his income is not truthful. But at the same time there are no materials to fix the quantum. Therefore considering the age of the child and other circumstances, I am inclined to show some leniency by reducing the maintenance awarded to the child from Rs.1,750 to Rs.1,500/= per month payable from the date of petition. 3. In the result, the revision petition is allowed by modifying the order of maintenance from Rs.1,750/= to Rs.1,500/= per month payable from the date of petition and the mother is at liberty to withdraw the amount on behalf of the child. If any amount is in deposit, let it be disbursed to the mother. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.53 OF 2009