IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 41 of 2006() -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2005 IN CMP NO.799 / 2003 IN MC.48/1993 of THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S)/ RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- P.P. RADHAKRISHNAN, PARAYARUKANDIPURAYI POOVATTUPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE MEDICAL COLLEGE. BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------- PADMINI AMMA, D/O. APPU NAIR, VALIYAKULANGARA HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, KOZHIKODE, CHEVAYOOR. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 41 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in C.M.P. 799/03 in M.C.48/93. Initially the trial court granted a maintenance of Rs.250/- to the wife which was reduced in revision by the High Court to Rs.150/-. This had taken place during 1994-95. In 2005 the wife moves an application for enhancement and the Court fixed it at Rs.500/-. It is that order which is under challenge in this revision. 2. The husband would contend that he has sustained fracture and therefore he is unable to do work. Exts.B1 and B2 would reveal that he had sustained a fracture on the vertebra and he had been advised to take eight weeks rest. Nothing further has come out to show that he is disabled from doing any work. Admittedly he is an employee of 'Abhilash theater' and it is contended that his total income is Rs.80/- per day whereas the wife would contend it is Rs.4,500/-. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 41 OF 2006 -:2:- Whatever it may be there is an employment for the husband. The husband has also got 20 cents of property admittedly from which he is taking income. So taking into consideration these aspects an enhancement of the amount to a small amount of Rs.500/- at this point of time by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-