IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 115 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.208/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O.KUNHAPPU HAJI, AKKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KULATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOHAMMED AKKARAPARAMBIL @ KUNHAPPU HAJI. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. ABIDA, D/O.KOYA, PUTHENPEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.ANAMANGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL SAMMAD, 4 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.ABIDA, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER-GUARDIAN ABIDA, THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R.1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.115 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th January, 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.208/2006. The revision petitioner is the husband who is aggrieved by the order of the court directing him to pay the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,200/- to the child. The husband challenges the order on the ground of the entitlement as well as the quantum. So far as the entitlement is concerned the couple are having a small child and under ordinary circumstances, no wife would try to be away from the husband especially when she has no background. She had been stating before the court that there was cruelty meted out to her by the husband and the inlaws and it became miserable and that even it had lead to psychological problems. So I do not propose to interfere with the finding rendered by the Family Court, that she is living only with reasonable cause away from the husband. 2. So far as the quantum is concerned the Family Court has stated it is only oath against oath. The wife would contend that 2 he is working as laboratory technician in gulf country whereas the husband contend that he is only a construction worker. There is no positive evidence to show that the income derived by the person from the gulf country. The court cannot jump to a conclusion that as he is working as laboratory technician just because he has done that job here. Therefore, it may not be possible to accept the finding of the Family Court on the quantum of maintenance. Since the husband is working abroad and unless there is some reasonable income he will not stick there. Taking note of that situation, I modify the award and grant maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife per month and Rs.1,000/- to the child. The order is modified accordingly, and it will have from the date of petition and the mother can collect the maintenance on behalf of the child as well. M.N.Krishnan, Judge cms