IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 268 of 2009(U) ----------------------- MC.410/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. AKKAMMA, SHAPPINKUMMU, KARAKURUSSI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & STATE OF KERALA: -------------------------------------------- 1. KUNJILAKSHMI, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, AANAVARAMBU, KARAKURUSSI P.O. 2. JITHINKRISHNA, AGED 3 1/2 YEARS, W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, AANAVARAMBU, KARAKURUSSI P.O., (MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER, 1ST PETITIONER). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No. 268 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of July 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. As per impugned order petitioner is directed to pay maintenance to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, his wife and son at the rate of Rs.1000/- each per month. Respondents alleged that petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to physical and mental cruelty and she was driven out from the matrimonial home. Since then respondents are staying in her parental home. It is also her case that .she has to spend huge amount for treatment of respondent No.2 who is suffering from epilepsy. Respondents alleged that petitioner is a real estate agent. Petitioner denied allegations of cruelty and harassment and claimed that respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home without any reason. He claimed that he is a construction labourer earning at the rate of Rs.100/- a day. Respondent No.1 in her evidence as PW1 stated about even attempt on the part of the petitioner to kill her and his assaulting her for which a police case is pending. She claimed that there was a mediation by the police as per which she agreed to return to the matrimonial home but as per the agreement petitioner did not turn up to take her to the matrimonial home. Petitioner gave contra evidence as RW1. He had been to the house of respondent No.1 to take her pursuant to the mediation but she refused to go with him. Court below R.P.F.C.No.268 of 2009 2 after consideration of the evidence found that respondent No.1 has valid reason to stay away from petitioner. Court also found that the offer made by petitioner to maintain respondents is neither sincere nor bonafide. That finding is under challenge in this revision. 3. It is not disputed that on the complaint made by respondent No.1, police has registered a case. She has given evidence as PW1 about the experience she had at the matrimonial home from petitioner and others. Petitioner would say that she is living separately for no reason whatsoever. It is difficult to think that respondent No.1 with her son suffering from epilepsy went out the protective umbrella of her husband for no reason taking up the responsibility of looking after the son for herself. I am inclined to think that she had valid reason to stay away. Court below rightly found accordingly. 4. What remained for consideration is whether the amount awarded is excessive and beyond the capacity of petitioner. Respondents have produced Exts.P27 to P29 and Exts.P32 to show that respondent No.2 is undergoing treatment for various illness including epilepsy. Respondent No.1 was aged 26 years and respondent No.2 aged 31/2 years at the time of making the application. Considering the illness of respondent No.2 and the basic needs of the respondents I am not inclined to think that Rs.1000/- each per months is exorbitant so as to call for interference by the revisional court, at the instance of R.P.F.C.No.268 of 2009 3 petitioner. 5. Next question is whether petitioner has sufficient means to pay such maintenance. Court below observed that there is no evidence to show that he a real estate agent as claimed by respondent No.1 but even as per his version he is a labourer. He is able bodied and there is no case otherwise. Hence he must be taken as capable of earning. According to him he is getting only Rs.100/- a day. Evidence of respondent No.1 is that petitioner is working in timber mill earning Rs.200/- a day. Court below observed that petitioner at any rate is capable of earning anything between Rs.125-200/- a day which brings his monthly income to Rs.5000/-. Having regard to the wages of manual labourers in existence in this state, I am unable to think finding entered by the learned Judge is erroneous. I am also unable to accept the contention that maintenance awarded is beyond the capacity of the petitioner so that this court is required to interfere. There is no merit in this revision and it is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/