IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 52 of 2009()
1. MEHABOOB ALI, S/O.KASIM KHAN, 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAJANA, AGED 24 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. D/O.MEHABOOB ALI, AGED YEAR,(MINOR)
For Petitioner :SMT.P.K.RADHIKA
For Respondent :SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :16/03/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 52 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the Family
Court, Palakkad in M.C.180/07. The wife and child moved an
application for maintenance and the court below granted
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.750/-
to the the child. It is against that decision the husband has
come up in revision.
2. Heard and perused. It is seen from the order of the
Family Court that the wife has spoken about the ill-treatment
meted out to her in the matrimonial home and the Family
Court held that it inspires confidence and therefore accepted
the evidence regarding the reason for separate living and
found accordingly. The Family Court also found that under
ordinary conditions woman may not live separately from the
husband without probable cause. I do not want to disturb that
finding as there is no illegality in the said finding.
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 52 OF 2009
-:2:-
3. Now turning to the quantum. The wife would
contend that the husband is having much resources but the
Family Court found that version cannot be accepted and there
is nothing to show that he is running any unit regarding
manufacture and sale of electrical goods. The Family Court
accepted the version of the husband, that is, he is working as
an employee in a motor garage where scraping work is done
but it did not accept the income of Rs.600/- spoken to by the
husband. So from the materials it has to held that no
convincing materials are available to fix the income of the
person. The law envisages some amount of proof in such
cases. At the same time as held by the Family Court it may
not be correct to hold that he is only getting an income of
Rs.600/- per week under the present wage set up. The child is
aged 1= years at the time of filing of the petition. I feel in this
matter some leniency can be shown towards amount awarded
to the child and maintenance ordered to the wife can be
retained as such.
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 52 OF 2009
-:3:-
In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by retaining the
maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and reducing the
quantum of maintenance payable to the child from Rs.750/- to
Rs.500/- payable from the date of petition. The mother is
authorised to draw the amount on behalf of the children. The
amount, if any, paid or deposited be withdrawn by the wife
and child.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-