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. 275 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.346/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REV.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- VIJAYAN, S/O.CHAMI, VARKKAD, VALLIKKODE P.O., MUTTIKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------- PARVATHY, W/O.VIJAYAN, PAYYAL HOUSE, PUTHUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD. 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.275 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of July 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor. 2. This revision is in challenge of the order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.346 of 2007 directing petitioner, now in his 50's to pay maintenance to his wife, the respondent at the rate of Rs.750/- per month. It is contended by learned counsel that respondent has no right to claim maintenance from the petitioner and that amount awarded is beyond the capacity of petitioner. 3. It is not disputed that petitioner and respondents are living separately since the last 22 years. It is also not disputed that petitioner married another lady and is staying with her. According to the petitioner, marriage between himself and the respondent was dissolved after 3 years of marital relationship. If that be so, petitioner cannot contend that respondent has no right for separate residence. Even otherwise evidence shows that petitioner has set up another family and is living with her. Hence respondent is entitled to have separate residence. 4. There is no evidence to show that respondent is otherwise capable of maintaining herself. The mere fact that she may have gone for work some time during her difficult days to make out some livelihood for her does not mean that she has sufficient means to R.P.F.C.No.275 of 2009 2 maintain herself nor does it absolve petitioner of his liability to maintain respondent. It is also idle for petitioner to contend that respondent has to depend or continue to depend on her sons who are now aged 26 and 23 years. After all, the sons have to set up their own family and find for their maintenance. Petitioner as husband of the respondent is bound to provide for her maintenance. What is awarded by the learned Judge in favour of respondent is only Rs.750/- by month which in no way is excessive. I am not inclined to think that petitioner who is in his fiftees is incapable of raising that amount. There is no reason to interfere with the order, at the instance of petitioner. There is no merrit in this revision and hence it is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/