IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 418 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.146/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:- -------------------------------------------- ABDULLA K.P., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.HASSAINAR MOULAVI, RESIDING AT RAMANTHALI, NEAR KANNANKAT TEMPLE, VADAKKUMPAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. M.SASINDRAN MR. M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:- ----------------------------------- 1. NABBESATH, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.M.K.IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT KARUVACHERY IN NILAMBUR VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.NILESHWAR. 2. THALHATH, AGED 9 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, IST RESPONDENT HEREIN. ADV. MR. P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- R.P. (F.C.) No. 418 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner who was the respondent in M.C. No. 146 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court, Kasaragod filed by the respondents herein who are wife and minor son of the revision petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., challenges the order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the Family Court directing the revision petitioner to provide maintenance to the minor child at the rate of Rs.900/- per month from the date of petition namely, 08.08.2006. Maintenance to the wife was disallowed for the reason that she is otherwise gainfully employed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated before me the contention that from the year 2003 onwards, the revision petitioner has been suffering from mental derangement and undergoing treatment at NIMHANS, Bangalore and the Family Court was, therefore, not justified R.P.(F.C) No. 418/2009 : 2 : in awarding maintenance as ordered. 3. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. In the first place, the petitioner did not produce any scrap of paper to prove the alleged mental illness. True, the Family Court had summoned the medical records from Pariyaram Medical College and that court was not inclined to accept the ground of unsoundness of mind as a valid ground to refuse maintenance to the minor child of the petitioner. The conclusion reached by the Family Court is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. This Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the said conclusion. This revision is accordingly dismissed in limine. Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv R.P.(F.C) No. 418/2009 : 3 :