IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 79 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/09/2007 IN OP.50/07 AND MC.50/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- BIJU PRABHATH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PANDACHAM VEETTIL, VADAYILKAVU ROAD, KADALUNDI P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.S.R.AJITH RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------- C.GAYATHRIDEVI, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.ANDI CHEERAKKUDA, SHASTHA BHAVAN P.O., VALLIKUNNU, THIRURANGADI TALUK. ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.(FC).NO.79 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the husband who has been ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife. This case was tried along with another case for return of so many things which went against the wife and the Court only ordered maintenance to pay to the wife. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that he is an unemployed person. He is not having any separate income and he is only assisting his father in his shop, and therefore, he is not in a position to pay maintenance. His second argument is that he is prepared to provide separate residence for the wife and on that ground also the order requires interference. I have perused the award, heard the counsel for both sides. Family Court has considered the matter and held that the father of the revision petitioner is having business called “M/s Golden footwear and fancy”. It has come out in evidence that the father is undergoing psychiatric treatment RP(FC).79/09 2 in the mental hospital and the revision petitioner is the only son who is looking after the entire business. There is no case for the petitioner that he is an employee. When a son helps the father in conducting the business, it goes without saying that he will also get income and he can spent the same. Further, the ultimate grievance of the wife is that since father in law is unwell, she is not in a position to reside with him. One cannot find fault with such a contention of the daughter- in-law and her apprehension. Now the wife is living separately and she is unable to maintain herself. The husband is working in a foot wear company and he is bound to maintain his wife. I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- which is a very reasonable amount. If there are any change of circumstance at a latter stage, it is for the husband to move the Court for variance of the order. The Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE prp