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. 424 of 2009() --------------------------------- MC.308/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------- MOIDUTTY, S/O.MOIDEEN, POOLAKKAL HOUSE, TIRUR TALUK, IRINGAVOOR AMSOM, VANIYANNOOR DESOM, KALPAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION. BY ADV. MR.C.DILIP RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. RAHMATH, D/O.ALAVI, THEKKEPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, THANALOOR AMSOM, MEENADATHOOR DESOM, TANUR POLICE STATION. 2. SHAMEER ALI, 13 YEARS (MINOR) 3. SHABEER, 8 YEARS (MINOR) (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT) R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.P.CHANDRASEKHAR. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.424 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the dismissal of M.C.No.308/2009 of Family Court, Malappuram. It was a petition moved for variation of the order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. As per the original order, the family court directed Rs.2,000/= to be paid to the wife and Rs.1,000/= each to the children. The husband now seeks to cancel the order on the ground of change of circumstance. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is undergoing treatment under a psychiatrist and that has affected his working capacity so adversely. He will not be able to earn the same and make the payment. A perusal of the order of the family court also would reveal that on previous instance the capacity of him was taken into consideration only as a taxi driver. If a person is having psychiatric problem, it may affect his work. Depending upon the nature of disorder, it : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.424 OF 2009 has to be established by medical evidence. It is true that the petitioner did not produce any document. But considering the details given in the petition itself, I feel that an opportunity has to be given. 3. Therefore I set aside the order of the family court and remit the case back to the family court for fresh consideration after affording opportunities to the petitioner as well as the respondents herein to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. It is made clear that till a final decision is taken in the matter, the husband namely the revision petitioner would be bound by the earlier order of maintenance. Parties are directed to appear before the family court on 27.4.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.424 OF 2009