IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.NO. 307 OF 2009() ----------------------------------- MC.568/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- SUBRAMANYAN,AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.KRISHNAN, VAIRANELLOOR HOUSE,THOZHUKKATTU VALIYAPARAMBIL, PONNANI NAGARAM AMSOM,PALLAPRAM DESOM,PONNANI P.O. PONNANI TALUK (PONNANI POLICE STATION) BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SATHEESA BABU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------- 1. AYYOTTU RAJI,AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.APPUNNI,AYIRUR AMSOM, PUTHIYIRUTHI DESOM,AYIRUR P.O. PONNANI TALUK. 2. APARNA,AGED 4 1/2 YEARS, D/O.AYYOTTU RAJI (AND PETITIONER) REPRESENTED BY AYYOTTU RAJI,PUTHIYIRUTHI DESOM, AYIRUR P.O., PONNANI TALUK. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRTITHWIK THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) No.307 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C. No.568 of 2008 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- per month, respectively. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 11.1.2004 and that respondent No.2 is born in that wedlock. Alleging cruelty and harassment to respondent No.1 respondents took up separate residence on 11.2.2006. They also alleged that petitioner neglected and refused to maintain them. In the meantime respondent No.1 filed O.P. No.478 of 2008 for divorce and got a favourable order. Respondents alleged that petitioner is a blacksmith by occupation, getting sufficient income and has landed properties. Petitioner claimed that respondent No.1 is a teacher earning at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month. Petitioner denied that he has landed properties or income as stated by respondent No.1. Court below recorded evidence of both sides and held that though respondent No.1 is a B.A. B.Ed. degree holder she is unemployed and is unable to maintain herself. Court below found that petitioner is a blacksmith engaged in lathe work in a workshop and being a skilled RP(FC) No.307 of 2009 -: 2 :- worker can earn at the rate of Rs.400/- per day. 2. On merits of the case, since respondent No.1 has already obtained divorce petitioner cannot contend that respondent No.1 is residing separately without valid reason. Moreover it is not disputed that parties are living separately from 11.2.2006. Petitioner never took steps to get back respondents. Therefore respondent No.1 is entitled to have separate residence and maintenance. 3. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned notwithstanding the propriety of her custody with respondent No.1 she is entitled to get maintenance as she is aged only 3½ years. 4. What remained for consideration is whether the amount awarded is excessive or beyond the reach of petitioner. It is not disputed that petitioner is a blacksmith and he is able bodied. Court below observed that he could earn not less than Rs.400/- per day. He has not produced evidence showing his actual income. The sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- per month awarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2 aged 33 and 3½ years, respectively on the date of application cannot be said to be excessive considering their basic necessities and cost of living. I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded is beyond the reach of petitioner. There is no reason to interfere with RP(FC) No.307 of 2009 -: 3 :- the impugned order at the instance of petitioner. Revision petition is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed. Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv