IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 416 of 2009() ---------------------------------- MC.731/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. SURESH, S/O.SAHADEVAN, AGED 30 YEARS, PAIRETH VEEDU, PADAGIRI DESOM, NELLIAMPATHY, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN MR.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUJATHA, D/O.VASU, AGED 26 YEARS, MYLANCHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, ERIKKAD, KUDALLUR, PALLASSENA AMSOM, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SNEHA (MINOR), D/O.SURESH, AGED 2½ YEARS, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER IST RESPONDENT, DO. DO. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.K.P.BALAGOPAL. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 416 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.MA.NO.11407/2009 IN RPFC NO.416/2009 DISMISSED 25/03/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.416 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 25th 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.731/2006. The family court awarded Rs.1,500/= to the wife and Rs.1,000/= to the child per month. It is against that decision, the husband has come up before this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The family court had found that there was reasonable cause for the wife to live separately which is a finding on fact without any mistake and therefore I am not inclined to interfere with the said finding. 3. The only question to be determined is regarding the quantum. Revision petitioner is a technically qualified man and he has been working in Nelliampathi, Bangalore and Thachanpara dealing with tissue culture. The last place is in Thachanpara. His argument is to the effect that while he was working in Bangalore, he met with an accident and on account of which he sustained head injury and therefore it : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.416 OF 2009 has affected his concentration. It is not a job of continuity but it is seen that he is working with different private institutions. 4. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am inclined to show little leniency by reducing the maintenance to the wife to Rs.1,200/= and that of the child to Rs.800/=. 5. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of by refixing the quantum of maintenance to the wife at Rs.1,200/= and the child at Rs.800/= per month both payable from the date of petition and the husband is directed to pay the same. If any amount is in deposit or paid, that shall be given credit to. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.416 OF 2009