IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 167 of 2009()
1. ISMAIL.M.P., S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.P.HASEENA, D/O.KUNHAMMED,
... Respondent
2. MUHAMMED ISSAM, AGED 10 YEARS,
3. ABDULLA UMAIR, AGED 7 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.FIROZ
For Respondent :SMT.K.V.RESHMI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :24/03/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
R.P.(F.C).No.167 OF 2009
&
R.P.(F.C).No.248 OF 2009
.............................................
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010.
O R D E R
Both these revisions are preferred against the order of
the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.374/2007. R.P.(F.C).
No.167 OF 2009 is preferred by the husband challenging the
quantum and the other revision is filed by the wife and
children raising inadequacy of the quantum.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. It is
submitted by the learned counsel for the wife and children
that enhancement is sought for only with respect to the
children in the case. Along with the maintenance case, there
was a case for restitution of conjugal rights as well and the
said case was dismissed by the trial court and I am informed
that a matrimonial appeal is pending before the Division
Bench of this Court. The learned counsel also submits before
me that she had moved an application for divorce and
obtained divorce. Therefore the reason to live separately
does not deserve consideration at this stage.
R.P.(F.C).No.167 OF 2009
&
R.P.(F.C).No.248 OF 2009 : 2 :
3. The next question is regarding the quantum.
According to the wife, the husband was employed abroad
and he is an expert cook and he is having large income from
his profession. On the other hand, the husband would
contend that he was not able to continue his job at gulf and
therefore has come back and is not having much work and
therefore he is unable to pay the huge amount as
maintenance.
4. I find from the order of the family court that the
children are directed to be with the mother during the
working days and with the father during the holidays. It
means that children are under the maintenance of the
father for 8 days in a month and the balance days with the
mother. The learned counsel for the wife would contend that
the children are being educated in a good school and
therefore larger amount is necessary for educating them.
5. This cannot be said to be an incorrect approach, but
at the same time one has to also look into the capability of
the man to look after all of them. As stated earlier, the
R.P.(F.C).No.167 OF 2009
&
R.P.(F.C).No.248 OF 2009 : 3 :
husband has to maintain the children for 8 days in a month.
He is only a cook by profession. He is not very well
educated. There is no absolute data to show regarding the
income which he is deriving. Therefore he has to be
considered as a coolie or just above the coolie and when
that income is taken into consideration, there cannot be a
sizable enhancement now and therefore, in the interest of
justice the matter can be disposed of by retaining the order
maintenance of Rs.1,000/= to the wife and enhancing the
maintenance to the children at the rate of Rs.250/= by
making it Rs.750/= which is subject to variation under the
provisions of Section 127 of Cr.P.C.
6. Therefore both the revisions are disposed of by
refixing the quantum of maintenance to the wife at
Rs.1,000/= per month and at the rate of Rs.750/= per
month to the children payable from the date of petition and
the mother is entitled to receive the amount on behalf of the
children. If any amount is in deposit, that shall be given
credit to and the balance need be paid.
R.P.(F.C).No.167 OF 2009
&
R.P.(F.C).No.248 OF 2009 : 4 :
Disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
R.P.(F.C).No.167 OF 2009
&
R.P.(F.C).No.248 OF 2009 : 5 :