IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 91 of 2009() --------------------- MC.175/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- C.JANISH, S/O.SAITHALAVI, CHEMBRAKKAL HOUSE, THARUVALLIPADOM, NEAR NORTH BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE.(FORMERLY ACHOTHPARAMBA, PAL COMPANY ROAD, NADUVATTOM P.OL., ARAKKINAR, KOZHIKODE) BY ADV. MR.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): IST PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------- NASEEMA, D/O.ABDUL KHADAR, SOOPPYAKATH, NAYARKULAM, KALLIKKAL P.O., BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2620/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.91/2009 DISMISSED 17/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.91 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.175/2007. The wife and a 1 ½ year old child moved an application for maintenance against the husband and the court below granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/= to the wife and Rs.500/= to the child per month respectively. The revision is filed by the husband against that order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend before me that the wife has no reasonable ground to live separately and that the quantum awarded is excessive. So far as the separate living is concerned,it is seen that there were earlier proceedings before the court and on reconciliation, the wife went with the husband. As she found it very difficult to continue there, she has to go back to her parental house. Therefore it is very clear that the wife does not want to be away from the husband. She had tried to be : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.91 OF 2009 with him but it has not materialised properly. Therefore the version of the wife that there are grounds to live separately appears to be more convincing and therefore I do not propose to interfere with the said finding of the family court. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is submitted that the husband is an auto driver. He would contend that he would only get a sum of Rs.100/= per day. The court had arrived at a decision that he would be getting more than Rs.250/= per day. Solely on the basis of a guess, the amount is fixed. 4. Under those circumstances, a slight leniency is shown regarding the maintenance to be paid to the wife by reducing it from Rs.1,000/= to Rs.900/= and retaining the maintenance amount to the child at Rs.500/= per month both payable from 26.6.2008, the date of order. Disposed of accordingly M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.91 OF 2009 : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.91 OF 2009