IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 41 of 2006()
1. P.P. RADHAKRISHNAN, PARAYARUKANDIPURAYI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PADMINI AMMA, D/O. APPU NAIR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
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/-