IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 236 of 2009() --------------------------- MC.474/2007 of THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------- VINOD, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, MULLANTHODI, PERIYAMPURATHU, KARAKKURUSSI AMSOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. PRIYA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT KULAKUZHIYIL, THALEYANNAKKADU, KADAMBALUR AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. NIKHITHA, D/O.VINOD, AGED 4 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER AND GUARDIAN PRIYA, FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO. 6106/2009 IN RPFC NO.236/2009 DISMISSED 08/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.236 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.474/2007. The wife and child moved an application for maintenance against the husband and the family court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/= to the wife and Rs.1,250/= to the child. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. After going through the entire evidence and also the documents produced along with the revision, a doubt lingers in the mind of every person as to the ownership of Sreenarayana Tea Stall situated in Ambathoor, Chennai. The whole difficulty arose only on account of producing documents which are capable of being created whereas the solid document in the form of licence from the municipality or corporation as the case may be would have sealed the fate of the said contention. What had happened is that the counsel for the wife at the time of cross examination had : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.236 OF 2009 tendered some documents and some admissions are brought. But the document is never marked and the husband has got a specific contention that he did not have a hotel. In the revision the husband had produced some receipts showing that one Mani is the owner of the hotel. Since it is a hotel being run at Chennai and if one is the owner definitely it will have a bearing on the status of the person which will have a direct impact on the quantum of maintenance to be paid. Similarly there are allegations that the husband is having landed property in Kerala as well. It is a matter that could be easily proved by production of documents. The only admitted fact I find that he admits to be a driver of a Tata Sumo car. The matter requires consideration for fixing the quantum. 3. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the family court and direct the court below to consider the matter afresh. But I make it very clear that the interim order whereby the court has directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/= shall continue till a final order is passed in the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.236 OF 2009 family court on 05.03.2010. Disposed of accordingly M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.236 OF 2009