IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 261 of 2006(E) ---------------------- MC.668/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. KARAPPAN, PANACHIKUZHI KANNANPALLI HOUSE, KADAMPUZHA P.O., KADAMPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------- 1. KOLANCHERY LEELA, D/O. VELAYUDHAN, TIRUNAVAYA AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.TIRUNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AJEESHA, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT) ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR FOR R1,R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 261 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.668/05. The wife and child moved an application for maintenance and the Family Court granted a maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.800/- to the child per month. Aggrieved by the same the husband has preferred this revision. 2. Heard both the sides. As far as the ground to live separately is concerned, it has come out in evidence that a case u/s 498A is pending before the concerned Magistrate Court. It is also in evidence that on account of the injury the wife was forced to be hospitalised. Therefore the ground to live separately stands established. Therefore I hold that the wife and child are entitled to separate maintenance. 3. Now turning to the quantum. According to the husband he had a soap factory but it has been closed down. The learned Family Court only relied upon Ext.D1 which is a R.P.(F.C.) NO. 261 OF 2006 -:2:- licence for running the unit but did not consider closely other documents issued by competent authorities cancelling the licence. The Family Court should not have done in that fashion at all. It has also come out in evidence that there was some amputation on the finger in 2001. But he has continued his industry upto 2006. So it has not affected his earning capacity at all. According to him he is only a coolie now and therefore he shall not be saddled with heavy liability. The factum that he is a person who is experienced in manufacturing of soap does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that he is making much amount of money but even if he is a coolie and considering the present wage set up I feel little leniency can be shown in the matter and therefore I reduce the maintenance payable to the wife at Rs.1,200/- and that of the child at Rs.600/- per month payable from the date of petition. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is partly allowed and a reduced maintenance is fixed at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month to the wife and Rs.600/- per month to the child payable by the husband from the date of petition. The mother is entitled to R.P.(F.C.) NO. 261 OF 2006 -:3:- draw the amount on behalf of the child. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-