IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 RPFC.No. 364 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.233/2004 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REV.PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- T.G.SURESH, S/O. LATE GOPALAN, 41/1890. THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.J.DEVADANAM SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- 1. KUM.RESHMA S,D/O. T.G.SURESH, AGED 12 YEARS, STUDENT, RES. AT 43/1614 VELUTHEDATH HOUSE,POOTTAKUZHI ROAD, PACHALAM, KOCHI-12 (MINOR REP. BY NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER SMT. V.A.SUDHA.) 2. SMT.V.A.SUDHA,W/O.T.G.SURESH, D/O.V.A.ACHUTHAN, AT 43/1614 VELUTHEDATH HOUSE,POOTTAKUZHI ROAD, PACHALAM, KOCHI-682 018. ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1 & R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO. 364 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.233/04. The wife and daughter had moved an application for maintenance and the Court below has granted at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to both of them from the date of petition namely 14.9.04. From a reading of the order it could be seen that the husband did not participate in the trial properly and the affidavit by the wife was accepted and they are residing separately due to the cruelty of the husband. So far as the maintenance case is concerned the Court below found that he has got a business at least in small scale and directed Rs.1,000/- to be paid. Considering the present living conditions, the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- is only a very reasonable amount which need not be interfered with by the revisional Court. But the learned counsel would submit that there are innumerable averments in the petition. I R.P.(FC) 364/07 -:2:- make it clear that since it is an exparte order of maintenance as the husband has not participated, the said allegation may not affect him in any further proceedings which is pending before other courts. With this observation the R.P.(FC) is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-