Maintenance quantum must be determined based on a realistic assessment of the obligor's actual average income, accounting for professional constraints such as seasonal or intermittent employment, rather than assuming constant annual earnings.

O R D E R

The order dated 10.03.2023 of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, in M.C.No.242/2018 directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- & Rs.25,000/- respectively, per month, to the wife and child of the petitioner, is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The petitioner works as a Marine Engineer in the Merchant Navy. His marital life ran into rough weather even within a short period after the marriage which was solemnized on 22.03.2015. Alleging that the petitioner started neglecting to maintain his wife and daughter born on 23.04.2016, the wife had approached the Family Court seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month for her and Rs.25,000/- per month to the daughter. The Family Court, after considering evidence adduced by both parties through the oral testimonies of PW1, RW1 to RW3, and the documents marked as Ext A1, A2, B1 to B12 & X1 series, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is bound to pay maintenance at the aforesaid rate to his wife and child. Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdict of the court below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded the liability of the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and child. However, the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court is strongly assailed, stating the reason that there was no rationale in fixing such an exorbitant amount. Adverting to the relevant paragraph (Paragraph No.14) of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below fixed the quantum of maintenance under the wrong assumption that the petitioner receives salary Rs.3,71,000/- per month throughout the year. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the employment of the petitioner is on contractual basis for a period of six to eight months a year, and that the petitioner will not be getting any salary during the remaining period when he is offshore. Thus, it is pointed out that the net income of the petitioner would only amount to Rs.1,85,000/- per month.

5. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had admitted before the court below that a person having three years experience will get a salary of 4,090 American Dollars, but as per Ext A1 salary details, the salary of the petitioner is shown as 9,751 American Dollars. Though it might be so stated by the petitioner in his testimony as RW1, it could be seen from Ext A1 that the salary of a third Engineer ranges from 3700 to 4165 American Dollars. At any rate, the Family Court had made the calculations by fixing the salary of the petitioner as Rs.3,71,000/- per month. So also, the quantum of maintenance has been fixed on the assumption that the petitioner draws such an amount throughout the year. The aforesaid conclusion of the Family Court is erroneous, since the persons employed in Merchant Navy are not able to work throughout the entire 12 months of the year. Therefore, there is merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there should be some reduction in the maintenance amount fixed by the court below.

6. Having regard to the standard of living of the parties, their social status, and other relevant parameters, I am of the view that the amount fixed as maintenance to the wife is liable to be reduced to Rs.40,000/- per month, and that of the child to Rs.20,000/- per month. Subject to the above modification in the quantum of maintenance amount, the impugned order of the Family Court has to be upheld. In the result, the revision petition stan