IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 158 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.719/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 41 YEARS, MARUTHAKUNNIL, CHALLIPARAMBU, KANNAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. PUSHPALATHA ,AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. KUMARAN, MARUTHAKUNNIL, CHALLIPARAMBU KANNAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. JITHEESH, AGED 15 YEARS, S/O. PUSHPALATHA DO...DO.... 3. JINESH, AGED 13 YEARS, S/O.PUSHPALATHA DO...DO... 4. JITHIN, AGED 10 YEARS, S/O.PUSHPALATHA DO...DO... ( 2 TO 4 MINOR RESPONDENTS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.4435/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.158/2009 DISMISSED 16/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.719/2006. The wife and three children moved an application for maintenance and the family court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/= to the wife, Rs.1,000/= to the first child, Rs.1,250/= to the second child and Rs.1,000/= to the third child. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner very strongly urges before me that the revision petitioner is only a welder deriving a monthly income of Rs.6,000/= and therefore, order of the family court requires interference. On the contra, the wife would contend that he is owning a welding unit and he is having a monthly income of Rs.50,000/= and that he owns a car and therefore his contention cannot be accepted. The wife has not succeeded in producing cogent materials to establish that he : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2009 is a proprietor of the welding unit. The profession of a welder is skilled one and considering the present wage set up the contention that he is only getting an income of Rs.6,000/= per month cannot be accepted. Even an unskilled labourer gets much more than the same and therefore, the version that he is only getting Rs.6,000/= is not believed. The family court also noted an important incident that took place in the court. It was suggested during cross examination that the revision petitioner has come in his car. He deposed that he has no car and he has come only by bus. Then it was pointed out that the car was driven by a person called Binies. The court asked him and then he replied that he has brought the revision petitioner in the car of a friend. When it was suggested to him again, he admitted that he has come in a car belonging to his friend. It may not be a ground to determine the quantum but it speaks in volume about the conduct of the person that he is not in the habit of telling truth. 3. The children are of growing age and they are studying in 12th, 10th Standards etc and therefore taking into : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2009 consideration all these aspects, I feel that a little leniency can be shown as follows: 4. The order of the family court can be modified by directing the husband to pay Rs.1,750/= per month to the wife, Rs.1,250/= per month to the first child and Rs.1,000/= each per month to the second and third children payable from the date of petition. The mother is entitled to withdraw the amount on behalf of the minors. If any amount is paid or deposited, that shall be given credit to as well. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2009