IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 11 of 2007() --------------------- MC.46/2006 of the FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- CHOZHIMADATHIL ISMAIL, S/O. ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, CHEROOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. CHEROOR, VIA. VENGARA,THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY MR.BABU S. NAIR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- SABIRA, D/O. AMARIYIL IBRAHIM, VALIYORA AMSOM, KACHERIPADI DESOM, P.O. VELIYORA, VIA. VENGARA, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY MR.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J., ADVOCATE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(F.C.).No.11/2007 ORDER IN CRL.M.A.544/2007 IN R.P.(F.C.)No.11/2007 DISMISSED. Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE 08/01/2010 TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN,J =========================== R.P.(F.C).No.11 of 2007 =========================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.46/2006. The wife moved two applications before the Family Court for getting the amount on account of the misappropriation of the ornaments as well as the past maintenance which is the subject matter of O.P.42/2006 and she had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) per month of which the court awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only). It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision challenging the correctness of the quantum awarded as future maintenance. This court cannot deal with the other subject matter for the reason that it is not a subject matter of this revision. Now, the wife would contend that the husband is running a good hotel in Gulf country. He has taken his brothers abroad and he is having a minimum income of rupees one lakh per mensum from the hotel business and therefore, he is bound to R.P.(F.C).No.11/2007 2 pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only). On the other hand, the husband would contend that he is working in a petty hotel with about three hundred Riyals as salary and is not able to make both ends and therefore, he cannot be saddled with bigger liability. Now, PW1 has deposed about the income of the person and on behalf of the respondent only a Power of Attorney Holder is examined. So, really speaking there is oath against oath and materials are lacking to fix the income of the person. It cannot be said that just because a person is employed in Gulf country he is having substantial income. If really a person is having substantial income certainly it will be pooled to the NRI account and the document would be available to show the income of the person. When a wife claims maintenance she has got a primary duty at least to satisfy the Court regarding the capacity of the husband to pay maintenance. Equally the evidence tendered by the other side is also not convincing. I am not prepared to accept that a man will go to Gulf country and remains there for seven years for a petty salary and come back to the native place. If one finds it is impossible to survive, he will certainly come back to the mother land and that R.P.(F.C).No.11/2007 3 also is a matter which has to be taken into consideration when really materials are lacking. Now, the Family Court in O.P.No.42/2006 had awarded a past maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/-(Rupee two thousand only), I think the same amount can be retained as future maintenance as well considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order is revised whereby maintenance is modified as Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) instead of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) from the date of petition as ordered by the court. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE dvs