IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 54 of 2006() --------------------- MC.171/2003 of Family Court, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------ P.SHERIF, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 35 YEARS, SHARMINA MANZIL, KARUVISSERI, MALIKKADAVU, KARAPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONERS : ---------------------------------------- 1. N.M.JULIE, D/O.USSAIN KOYA, AGED 26 YEARS, N.M.NIVAS, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KALLAI POST, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. HIBA, D/O.N.M.JULIE, AGED 3 YEARS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER. ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 54 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.171/03. The wife and child moved an application for maintenance and the Court below directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.2,250/- to the wife and Rs.1,750/- for the child with effect from 13.5.2003. Aggrieved by that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel for both the sides. A perusal of the order and the documents would reveal that the wife had to leave the matrimonial home on account of the cruelty inflicted on her and therefore the said finding on fact does not require any interference and therefore I find the wife and child are entitled to claim maintenance. 3. Now the question is regarding the quantum. It is stated that the husband is a business man. The husband would say that he is an employee in a video shop namely 'Chithram'. Documents in the form of phone bills, professional R.P.(F.C.) NO. 54 OF 2006 -:2:- tax receipts etc. would reveal that he is paying professional tax and paying phone bills which would indicate that he is part and parcel of 'Chithram Videos'. The receipt of professional tax does not show that he is getting a large income from the said business. The wife in chief examination would go to the extend of saying that he is a man with electrical business as well as super market. But nothing is produced and not even a suggestion is put to the husband when he was in the witness box regarding the correctness of the same. So the materials available would indicate that only he is having a video shop called 'Chithram' near YWCA road, Kozhikode. I am afraid that the Family Court jumped to the conclusion that he has got an income of Rs.20,000/- without any positive or believable evidence. But considering the fact that he is running a video shop in a busy locality in Kozhikode and also considering the nature of expenses which he is incurring, I feel in the fitness of things a reasonable amount has to be awarded to the wife and child. I think justice can be met by awarding a maintenance of Rs.1,750/- to the wife and Rs.1,250/- to the child which is to take effect from 13.5.2003. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 54 OF 2006 -:3:- 4. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by awarding a maintenance of Rs.1,750/- to the wife and Rs.1,250/- to the child payable from 13.5.2005. The mother is permitted to collect the amount on behalf of the minor as well. 5. Needless to say when the circumstances change the parties are at liberty to move the Family Court under S.127 Cr.P.C. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-