IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 339 of 2009()
1. PARAKKADAN FAID, S/O. IBRAHIM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.P. SABNA, D/O. UMMAR,
... Respondent
2. MUHAMMAD DILSHAD, 3 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :08/02/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
R.P.(F.C).No.339 OF 2009
.............................................
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the
Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.36/2009. The wife and
a small child had moved an application for maintenance and
the family court has ordered maintenance at the rate of
Rs.1,500/= to the wife and Rs.600/= to the child. It is
against that decision, the husband has come up in revision.
2. The main question is only regarding the quantum.
I had gone through the evidence of RW1, the husband. His
evidence itself would reveal that he is not financially so
weak. In his cross examination it has been brought out that
he is having two mobile phones. Though he claims that one
of them belongs to his friend, he has not proved it. He had
also stated that he used to purchase cloths for Rs.500/=
per month to the wife and Rs.100/= to the child. He also
admits that at least he will get an income of Rs.200/= per day.
He had further stated that he does not know what is the
extent of the property his father is having. He would also
: 2 :
R.P.(F.C).No.339 OF 2009
submit that there are coconuts and areacanuts derivable
from the property but he does not know the quantum.
3. So an over all reading of the entire evidence
would reveal that he is a man living affluently and he was
also looking after his family at the time of happiness also.
Considering the present necessity and escalation of price
under any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the
maintenance ordered is on the higher side and it is also
stated that the husband is also capable of making payment
to the wife and child.
The revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl
: 3 :
R.P.(F.C).No.339 OF 2009