High Court Kerala High Court

Abdul Raheem Tharayil vs Rajula E.T. on 13 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Abdul Raheem Tharayil vs Rajula E.T. on 13 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 130 of 2008()


1. ABDUL RAHEEM THARAYIL, AGED 28 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RAJULA E.T., AGED 24 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. HIBA, 2 1/2 YEARS (MINOR),

3. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :13/01/2010

 O R D E R
                       M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

                -----------------------------------------
                      R.P.F.C.No.130 OF 2008
                -----------------------------------------

               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.468 of 2007. The wife and child of

the revision petitioner moved an application for maintenance and

the court below granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife

and Rs.600/- to the child. It is against that decision the husband

has come up in revision.

2. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

3. The documents relied on by the petitioner in the case

Exts.A1 to A3 really does not signify the income of the husband

but it relates to other parties. So far as the fixation of quantum

is concerned the court below relied upon a statement given by

the husband to the effect that he was regularly visiting the wife

after delivery and was giving Rs.500/- or Rs.1,000/- every week

and he was capable of giving the same and so on the basis of the

same the court ordered maintenance. It has to be stated that

these are all answers to the questions in cross examination

without any precise indication of his income and therefore that

2

shall not be sole basis for arriving at a decision. But the fact that

he is very young able bodied man aged 27 years and a healthy

person he is bound to give reasonable maintenance to his wife

and child. It is true that wife has not succeeded in proving the

conduct of a fancy store at Thurakal, Kondotty by the husband.

Therefore, considering the facts, his age etc., I am inclined to

modify the award by reducing the maintenance of wife to a sum

of Rs.1,600/- per month and Rs.600/- to the child.

4. Revision disposed of accordingly. The maintenance shall

be paid from the date of petition and minors amount can be

received by the mother.

M.N.Krishnan, Judge

cms