Padmakumar vs Rukmini Amma on 30 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 158 of 2007()


1. PADMAKUMAR, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RUKMINI AMMA, W/O. PADMAKUMAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ARJUN, (MINOR, AREEPLACKAL,

3. ANANDU (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)

                For Respondent  :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

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

 Dated :30/03/2010

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                  ...........................................
                  R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2007
                 .............................................
            Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010.

                              O R D E R

This revision is preferred against the order of the

Family Court, Kottayam in M.C.No.13/2005. The family

court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/= to the

wife and Rs.400/= each to the children. Aggrieved by the

same, the husband has come up in revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

as well as the respondents. The learned counsel for the

revision petitioner contends before me that by virtue of

Exts.B1 and B2, 48 cents of property had been transferred in

favour of the wife and children and that has not been taken

into consideration by the family court for fixing the

maintenance. It is also contended by her that the revision

petitioner met with an accident and that also has affected

him badly. It is also submitted that there is some disability

for the person. The first contention that the documents are

executed appears to be correct but in para 8 of the order,

the family court had extracted the evidence of the revision

: 2 :
R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2007

petitioner whereby he has admitted that the property

covered by Exts.B1 and B2 gift deeds are still in his

possession and he is taking income there from. It has also

come out in evidence that he has got another 70 cents of

land which produces rubber. According to him, it will only

give 100 kg of rubber every year.

3. Considering the extent of the land as well as the

land in possession though conveyed by gift deed, the

income can be reasonable and the amount ordered cannot

be said to be on the higher side. But if the revision

petitioner parts with his possession and gives the property

under Exts.B1 and B2 to the wife and children necessarily

there will be the right for them to get income from that

property. After handing over the possession of the

property to them, I make it very clear that the revision

petitioner can approach the family court for variation of the

order of maintenance as contemplated under Section 127 of

Cr.P.C.

So with the opportunity to do so, the revision petition

is dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl

: 3 :
R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2007

: 4 :
R.P.(F.C).No.158 OF 2007