IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 102 of 2004() --------------------------------- MC.252/2003 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI. .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S) /PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAMEEMA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.V.HYDRU, R/O.VARIYATHODI HOUSE, PUZHAKKATTIRI AMSOM, KATTILASSERI DESOM, P.O. KADUNGAPURAM-679321, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DAUGHTER THAHASIN, MINOR, AGED 9 1/2. 3. DAUGHTER HENNA, MINOR, 4. SON MOHAMMED, MINOR (MINORS 2 TO 4 ARE REP: BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER, 1ST REVN.PETITIONER SHAMEEMA). BY ADV. MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- MOHAMED ASKAR, S/O.MOHAMED, R/O.PO KADUNGAPURAM, KURUVA AMSOM, KARINCHIPPADI DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. MR.K.P.MUJEEB FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P.(F.C) No. 102 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No. 252/2003. The wife aged 26 years with three children moved an application for maintenance against the husband. The court ordered a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as maintenance to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- each to the children. Dissatisfied with the quantum the wife and children have come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that the husband is a very resourceful person having business and landed property and having a minimum income of more than Rs. 50,000/- per month. Therefore they are entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The documents produced are Exts. P3, P3(a) and P3(b) with respect to the properties and Exts. P4 and P4(a) with respect to the business. Ext. P3 is an assignment of the year 1999 relating to an extent of 16.20 cents of dry land. R.P.(F.C) No. 102/2004 -2- It was purchased for a sum of Rs. 16,000/- at the relevant point of time. Ext. P3(a) is another assignment deed having an extent of 7 ¼ cents which is also purchased for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/-. Ext. P3(b) is an assignment deed with respect to 21.50 cents for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/- in the year 1999. Ext. P4 would show that the husband is conducting a business of iron and P4(a) would show that he is having business of tiles and sanitary items. The petitioner when examined had deposed before the court that the husband is getting a monthly income of Rs. 50,000/-. But there is no evidence what soever to show what is the income fetched from the properties or from the business. On the other hand the husband would depose before the court that he was previously an income tax payee and he had business in steel and sanitary items. According to him he has not renewed the licence and his financial position is not very safe. He had also produced some documents to show that he is having some ailment with his heart and therefore he is not in a position to pay the maintenance as claimed. The court below also considered the point regarding the education of the children to the effect that R.P.(F.C) No. 102/2004 -3- they are studying in a well reputed school. It had taken into consideration the entire materials available and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- each to the children, totalling a sum of Rs. 4,500/- per month. I feel with the materials available, it was the reasonable amount that could have been granted by a court of law. The total extent of the property by Ext. P3 and Ext P3(b) covers an extent of about 35-40 cents. The residential building will not fetch any income. There is nothing to show the possible income that can be derived from the business. The Family Court had taken into consideration the fact that he is a man with landed property who is running a business. Only on analysis of the materials the court had fixed a fair amount as maintenance. I do not find any error committed which requires interference at the hands of this court. The R.P.(F.C) lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm