IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 142 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.18/2005 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER : RESPONDENT ----------------- M.N.SABU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.M.K.NARAYANAN, MARAPPILLIL HOUSE, MARADY, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL GEORGE SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SMT.V.A.SARITHA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------- 1. M.K.SEENA, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O.M.N.SABU, MATANAYIL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR, MULAVUR POST, ERAMALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. ARJUN SABU, S/O.M.N.SABU AGED 6 YEARS, -DO- -DO- REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SEENA M.K. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C No.142 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order obliging the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- per mensem respectively to his wife aged 29 years and child aged 6 years. 2. The marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The husband does not offer to maintain the wife on condition that she lives with him. In fact he has filed an application for divorce, it is admitted. 3. The only dispute hence is about the quantum of maintenance which is directed to be paid. Of course, there was a contention raised that the wife is employed and is not a person unable to maintain herself. This assertion is denied by her and there is absolutely no evidence to show that the wife has any income to enable her to maintain herself. 4. The petitioner herein has a stable employment. He has landed properties also. R.P.F.C No.142 of 2008 2 5. Even as an able bodied person, the petitioner is bound to work and support his wife and child. On an evaluation of the entire materials available, the conclusion appears to be inescapable that the quantum of maintenance awarded is modest, reasonable and consistent with the materials available about the means of the petitioner and the needs of the claimants. In any view of the matter, the quantum fixed does not certainly warrant interference at the instance of the petitioner. 6. This Revision Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-