IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 6 of 2007() -------------------- AGAIN ST THE ORDER IN MC.392/2003 of FAMILY COURT KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- KOYILOTH MEETHAL PRADEEPAN, S/O. KUNJIRAMAN, KEEZHAL AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- MEETHALE CHALIL PRAVEENA, D/O. BALAN, MEPPAYIL DESOM , NADAYKKA AMSOM, VATAKARA TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ============== R.P.(FC) No.6 OF 2007 =============== Dated this the 14th day of January 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.392/03. The unfortunate couple, who got married on 27.5.01, had fallen out. The husband moved for divorce, the wife for return of ornaments, and also for maintenance. The petition for divorce as well as for return of ornaments were dismissed by trial court. The maintenance case was allowed and Rs.1,500/- was ordered to be paid as maintenance to the wife. So the grievance to be considered in this revision is regarding the quantum of maintenance. The evidence available is only oath against both. The wife would deposed that the husband is an owner of a shop having an income of Rs.10,000/-but the husband would contend that he is an employee of the shop having an income of Rs.600/-. Since the quantum of maintenance depends upon the income of the husband as well, there is a prima facie duty cast upon the wife also to prove the ownership of the shop. The Family Court felt that since the husband had admitted that he is a workman R.P.(FC) No.6 OF 2007 2 the burden is shifted on him to prove the ownership, I feel such an approach can not be made. Whatever it may be the contention of the husband is that he is only drawing a some of Rs.600/-. In the year 2007 by any stretch it can not be accepted as truthful. Similarly materials are lacking to prove the claim of wife that he is having Rs.10,000/- as income. An young man who is physically strong is bound to maintain his wife and considering the factum that the cost of living had escalated to the hilt a reasonable amount has to be provided to the wife as maintenance. So taking note of that situation I feel an amount of Rs.1,200/- can be fixed in the absence of a concrete evidence regarding the capacity of husband to pay the maintenance. Therefore, the revision is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,200/- and the wife is entitled to get same from the date of the suit. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. If the parties are settling this matter also along with other cases there is no bar for the parties to file a petition to reopen this case. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns R.P.(FC) No.6 OF 2007 3