IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 158 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.13/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ PADMAKUMAR, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, NEARIYANIKAL, AZHANGADU KARA, PERUVANTHANAM, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.K.REENA SMT.REKHA NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 & STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. RUKMINI AMMA, W/O. PADMAKUMAR, AREEPLACKAL, MELAMPARA P.O., KEEZHAMPARA. 2. ARJUN, (MINOR, AREEPLACKAL, MELAMPARA P.O., KEEZHAMPARA, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER. 3. ANANDU (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, 1ST PETITIONER. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R1 TO 3 P.P. SRI.BENNY VARGHESE FOR R4 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kottayam in M.C.No.13/2005. The family court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/= to the wife and Rs.400/= each to the children. Aggrieved by the same, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends before me that by virtue of Exts.B1 and B2, 48 cents of property had been transferred in favour of the wife and children and that has not been taken into consideration by the family court for fixing the maintenance. It is also contended by her that the revision petitioner met with an accident and that also has affected him badly. It is also submitted that there is some disability for the person. The first contention that the documents are executed appears to be correct but in para 8 of the order, the family court had extracted the evidence of the revision : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2007 petitioner whereby he has admitted that the property covered by Exts.B1 and B2 gift deeds are still in his possession and he is taking income there from. It has also come out in evidence that he has got another 70 cents of land which produces rubber. According to him, it will only give 100 kg of rubber every year. 3. Considering the extent of the land as well as the land in possession though conveyed by gift deed, the income can be reasonable and the amount ordered cannot be said to be on the higher side. But if the revision petitioner parts with his possession and gives the property under Exts.B1 and B2 to the wife and children necessarily there will be the right for them to get income from that property. After handing over the possession of the property to them, I make it very clear that the revision petitioner can approach the family court for variation of the order of maintenance as contemplated under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. So with the opportunity to do so, the revision petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2007 : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2007