IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 458 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.628/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- N.KUNHIMUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, NALAKATH HOUSE, VAVAPPADI, VADAKKUMPURAM P.O., EDAYUR VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. NISAR, 16 YEARS, (MINOR) S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER A.P.SAJITHA, D/O.A.P.MOIDEEN, ARANGATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHAKKUMPADI, VADAKKUMPURAM P.O., EDAYAR VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK. 2. NIYAS, AGED 10 YEARS (MINOR) S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED, -DO- DO. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.A.MOHAMMED MUSTAQUE, MR.M.K.SUMOD, MR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, MR.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH), MR.V.G.SALEESH. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.11497/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.458/2007 DISMISSED 2/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 458 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.628/06. The wife and two children moved an application for maintenance and the claim with respect to the wife was rejected on the ground that she has become a divorced wife and she had moved an application under the provisions of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. So far as the children are concerned the Court ordered Rs.2,000/- to the first child and Rs.1,500/- to the 2nd child. 2. A perusal of the order would reveal that the wife would contend that the husband is running a hotel by name M/s Mubarak Hotel in Oman but according to him he is only an employee in the hotel. He would further contend that the said hotel was destroyed by fire. It was not a pleaded case as well. He did not produce any passport or the cancellation of the visa. The Court also found that he is not prepared to speak R.P.(F.C.) NO. 458 OF 2007 -:2:- the truth in full. He has also admitted before Court that while he was abroad he used to send Rs.5,000/- to the minor children. It has also come out in evidence that he wants to educate his children well. He had also sold properties to his sister as well as to another person. So the Court found that he is a capable man. In a case of this nature generally one finds lack of proper evidence for the reason that majority of them are employed abroad. It is always to be remembered that when a person seeks employment abroad unless it is better than the conditions here nobody would go and live separately away from the family members. So there is generally an impression that persons have got better resources when they are employed abroad. Since he has not produced any document to show that he has lost his job and he is not doing any employment there now, considering the backdrop of the whole materials I feel some slight reduction need to be done. Therefore I reduce the rate of maintenance to the first child to Rs.1,750/- and retain the maintenance of the 2nd child at Rs.1,000/- both payable from the date of filing R.P.(F.C.) NO. 458 OF 2007 -:3:- of the M.C. The mother is authorised to draw the amount on behalf of the children. The first respondent will be entitled to maintenance until he attains majority. Needless to say he will not be entitled to any maintenance thereafter. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-