IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 52 of 2007() -------------------------------- MC.126/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, SON OF BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, THARAMMAL HOUSE, KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. C.THANKAMANI, DAUGHTER OF BALAN MENOKI, AGED 31 YEARS, VADAKKE EDOLI HOUSE, MORIKKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO. 1562/2007 IN RP(FC) 52/2007 DISMISSED 22/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C.)No.52 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.126/2005. It was an application for maintenance filed by the wife against the husband on the ground that she has been ill treated which had forced her to live separately and to claim maintenance. The court below found in favour of the petitioner and granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/= per month to be paid by the husband. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel. The main dispute is only regarding the quantum. An attempt was made by the husband to prove that the wife is working as a sweeper in TVS Ltd. but a letter was submitted by TVS authorities to the effect that there is no such worker in that establishment. So, the attempt of the husband to prove the income of the wife has failed. The wife has not established any document to prove the income of the husband. According to her, he is getting a monthly income of Rs.5,000/=. He has admitted at least that. : 2 : R.P.(F.C.)No.52 OF 2007 He was doing resoling work of tyres previously. He would depose that since he is not doing well, he is unable to do that work. The court below found that he appears to be a healthy man and no documents are produced to prove that he is not capable of doing any work. Considering the fact that he is aged 42 years, the court felt that an amount of Rs.2,000/= can be awarded as maintenance. There is nothing to show that what will be his income. Even if he is a daily worker, he may not be able to do the work all the 30 days in a month and he has to look after himself. 3. Therefore striking the balance in between the two, I think it is just and fair to modify the award of maintenance from Rs.2,000/= to Rs.1,500/=. 4. In the result, the RPFC is disposed of by modifying the quantum of maintenance payable by the husband to the wife as Rs.1,500/= per month, that too from the date of petition. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C.)No.52 OF 2007 : 4 : R.P.(F.C.)No.52 OF 2007