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. 264 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.54/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. LOVELY, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SHAJU, PAZHAIDATHIL VEETIL, MUTTOM KARAYIL, MUTTOM VILLAGE, KANAR POLICE STATION. 2. SALINI, AGED 12 YEARS, MINOR D/O.SHAJU, PAZHAIDATHIL VEETIL, MUTTOM KARAYIL, MUTTOM VILLAGE, KANJAR POLICE STATION. 3. SHERIN, AGED 8 YEARS, MINOR, D/O.SHAJU, DO. DO. 4. SHINU AGED 4 YEARS, MINOR D/O.SHAJU, DO. DO. (MINOR PETITIOERS 2 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER AS THEIR GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND). BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- SHAJU, AGED 42, PAZHAYIDATH VEETTIL, MUTTOM KARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE, MUTTOM P.O., KANJAR POLICE STATION. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 264 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thodupuzha in M.C.54/06. The wife and children had requested for enhancement of maintenance given at the rate of Rs.500/- each to them. 2. I had heard the learned counsel for both the sides. It is seen that the husband had admitted in evidence regarding the fact that he had two acres and 90 cents of land. He had deposed before Court that there was rubber plantation therein and he had converted it into plots and sold it and had spent the whole amount for discharging the liability, for conduct of cases etc. Though he has admitted that he has got a bank account in the Idukki Co-operative Bank no materials are available to prove what is his deposit or balance in the S.B.Account. His family appears to be a respectable one wherein one brother is a lawyer, the other brother is a Panchayath member and another brother is the President of R.P.(F.C.) NO. 264 OF 2006 -:2:- the Co-operative Bank who is no more. This man is a graduate. The observation of the Family Court that he has admitted in the counter that he is getting Rs.40,000/- per year from his pineapple cultivation is not correct as no such statements are there in the counter statement. While fixing the quantum of maintenance the Court has to find out the reasonable income of the man to fix the quantum. The Tribunal on the materials found that only Rs.500/- each can be paid by the husband. One cannot hold that it is incorrect or it is vitiated by misappreciation of evidence. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the Family Court. Hence the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-