IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 58 of 2010() --------------------- MC.162/2008 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- KRISHNANKUTTY GUPTHAN, S/O. KUTTA GUPTHAN, RESIDING AT KAPPRAMKOTTIL VEEDU, KARIMBA P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- BHARGAVI, W/O. KRISHNANKUTTY GUPTHAN, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEKKARA HOUSE, KARIMBA P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.1516 OF 2010 IN RPFC.NO.58 OF 2010 DISMISSED 6..4.2010. SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JDUGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE cl M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.58 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.162/2008. A 57 year old wife has moved an application against a 64 year old husband and the family court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/= to be paid by the husband to the wife. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard both sides. The learned young counsel (Sri.Appu) for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that the family court has erred on material point in deciding the quantum. The learned counsel submits before me that a petition to receive documents filed as C.M.P.No.1585/2009 was not entertained by the family court and that had resulted in miscarriage of justice. It has to be remembered that the documents attempted to be produced are documents which are said to be executed by the revision petitioner in favour of others and almost all the : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.58 OF 2010 documents are during the period of 1994-2000. When the wife contends that the husband is having large extent of property and the husband wants to stoutly deny the same, being an executant of the document, he would have been vigilant to produce those documents especially in a case where summary proceeding is adopted for disposal of the case. Therefore attempting to consider those documents in the revision stage is not proper and further it is not on the basis of those documents, the family court has passed the order of maintenance. Now the husband would contend that the wife is having 53 cents of land and she is taking considerable income from the said property. The wife would contend that it is only a property jointly belonging to all the members of the family and further it is only a wet land which does not fetch much income. It is a common knowledge that now a days double crop lands are not being cultivated because of the huge investment for cultivation and the expenses. So from an extent of 53 cents, what shall be the income can be easily stated to be not on the higher side but a negligible income. On going through the : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.58 OF 2010 evidence of the husband, it can be seen that he is residing in a double storied building having an extent of 86 cents of land. He would say that there are yielding trees here and there which does not fetch much income. He had also admitted in evidence that there is a dispute between him and his sister with respect to a water flowing and the extent of property involved is 50 cents. History of this man would reveal that he was having bus service and he was also having bank account and a man who had gifted some of the properties to his children. The reason for the second marriage or what ever it may be is on account of the fact that no son was born in the first marriage i.e., in the present petitioner. So, he was a man who was able to maintain two families for large number of years and even now he is a man with some landed properties which is capable of yielding. It is true that the children may look after the parents but just because children are there, the court cannot jump to the conclusion that mother is to be looked after by the children. That is why under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C the law gives a duty on the husband to maintain the wife. : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.58 OF 2010 Therefore a reasonable amount has to be ordered as maintenance. 3. Then what shall be the quantum. It has to be remembered that capacity of the husband and necessity of the wife are the two matters which has to be balanced while fixing the quantum. Certainly on account of the old age, the husband is having some health problems as well. So taking into consideration all the materials , I feel that a reasonable amount of Rs.1,500/= that can be ordered as maintenance to the wife. 4. Therefore I fix the order of maintenance at Rs.1,500/= per month payable by the husband to the wife from the date of petition namely 16.5.2008. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.58 OF 2010