IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 482 of 2007() ------------------------------- MC.741/2005 of 2005 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- G.JANANAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, VADAKKEVILA VEEDU, UNNINMOODU, EDAVA P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT KOCHUVILAKAM VEEDU, VENKULAM, EDAVA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. S.SMITHA, D/O.SULEKHA, RESIDING AT VADEKKEVILA VEEDU, UNNINMOODU ELAKAMON P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JEESMON, S/O.G.JANANAN, AGED 7 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 3. JEENOMON, S/O.G.JANANAN, AGED 4 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 4. JISNA, D/O.G.JANANAN, AGED 10 MONTHS, RESIDING AT DO. DO. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT MOTHER). ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.C.S.DIAS FOR R1 SRI.AJITH MURALI FOR R1 SMT.R.BEENA FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 482 of 2007 ORDER ON CRL. M.A. NO.12160/2007 IN RPFC.No. 482 OF 2007 DISMISSED SD/- 15/3/2010 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mns M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.482 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 15th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Nedumangad in M.C 741/2005. The wife and three minor children were ordered to be paid maintenance at he rate of Rs.1,000/- each per month by the husband and challenging the same, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel on both sides. So far as the entitlement of maintenance is concerned, even though the wife has obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the husband is not ready to live with her, which indicates that he is not prepared to accept her and so, one cannot blame her for living separately and claiming maintenance. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned, the husband has admitted before the court that he was a teacher in two or three tutorial colleges and it has also come out in evidence that he had money lending business and that he used to R.P.(F.C) No.482 OF 2007 2 deposit or join chities in the name of wife. I am referring to this only for the purpose of showing that he is a man with reasonable income who can afford to join in chities and other companies. The conduct of a chity or money lending is a lucrative business and it fetches good income. Therefore, the man is proved to have reasonable income. It has to be borne in mind that last child is only 10 months and it cannot be correct order the same rate of maintenance to that child as well as that of a 7 year old child. Therefore, I feel only modification required is to reduce maintenance to 4th petitioner in the M.C. as Rs. 750/- instead of Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, revision petition is disposed of by confirming order of maintenance in favour of petitioners 1 to 3 and reducing maintenance of 4th petitioner from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.750/-. If any amount paid or deposited, that shall be given credit to and it shall take effect from the date of petition. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns