IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 110 of 2009() ---------------------------------- MC.461/2008 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPPURAM .................... PETITIONER (S) -------------------------- ARAMAKKAVEETTIL MOOTHEDATH SHAMLECK S/O.HAMZA,KODINHI AMSOM, DESOM P.O.,KODINHI TIRURAGADI TALUK. BY ADV. MR.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ MUKKATTIL ASIYA D/O. SAIDALAVI, OZHUR AMSOM, THALAKKADATHUR DESOM P.O.,OZHOOR,TIRUR TALUK. ADV. MR.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO.3084/2009 IN RPFC. NO.110/2009 DISMISSED 12/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P. A. TO JUDGE tss M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.110 OF 2009 ====================== Dated this the 12nd day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.461/2008. The Family Court granted an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner from the date of filing of the M.C. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner wound strongly contend before me that the Family Court was not right in fixing the maintenance at Rs.5,000/- in the absence of materials. He had produced along with revision some documents obtained subsequently to prove that he was only having income of Rs.600/- Dirhams equivalent Rs.7,500/- and therefore, the amount awarded is exorbitant. What was the income available to him and R.P.(F.C) No.110 OF 2009 2 whether the document relied upon by him can be accepted are all matters which the court can consider only after getting evidence in the matter. Therefore, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to both sides to produce documentary as well as oral evidence with respect to the quantum of maintenance to be fixed in the case. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court with a direction to permit both parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. But as an interim arrangement the revision petitioner shall continue to pay at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month from 1.6.2009 onwards and let the matter be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties before the Family Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 20.4.2010. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns