IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 267 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.642/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ THEKKEPEDIKAKKAL SALEEM, S/O.MOHAMMED ALIAS BAVA, PATTAMPAD, NIRAMARATHOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SUHARA, D/O.MOHAMMED, PULLUNI HOUSE, MEENADATHOOR P.O., TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED SAHAL (MINOR),2 YEARS, S/O.SALEEM, REPRESENTED THROUGH MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 & R2 BY MR.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL. R3 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.13324/2006 IN RP(FC) NO.267/2006 DISMISSED 29/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No. 267 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.642/2005. The wife and a small child moved an application for maintenance and the court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/= to the wife and Rs.600/= to the child. It is against that decision, the husband has preferred this revision. The husband moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights and it is seen that the same prayer has been disallowed by the court. No appeal is preferred against the said finding. There is a finding to the effect that the wife is not living separately without any reasonable cause. So the liability to maintain is very much on the husband. 2. Now regarding the quantum. A perusal of para 8 of the order would reveal that the man is working in a hotel. He is not the owner. There is nothing to show that what is his income. The court without adverting to that had directed him to spare reasonable amount for the maintenance : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No. 267 OF 2006 of the wife and child. It may not be correct on my part to hold that the amount of Rs.1,500/= and Rs.600/= is an exorbitant amount under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Necessity of the person with the capacity of the person to pay have to be considered together so as to avoid destitution to the neglected and peril to the other person. 3. Therefore taking into consideration all these aspects, I am inclined to show some leniency to make the order workable and therefore I fix the quantum of maintenance to the wife at Rs.1,000/= and to the child at Rs.500/=. 4. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of by refixing the quantum of maintenance at Rs.1,000/= to the wife and Rs.500/= to the child both payable from the date of petition and the mother can receive the amount on behalf of the child. If any amount is paid or deposited, that shall be given credit to. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No. 267 OF 2006 : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No. 267 OF 2006