IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 323 of 2007(M) ----------------------- MC.449/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MURALI, S/O. PAZHANIAPPAN, AGED 36 YEARS, VANIANTHARA, ELAPPULLY PARA, VENGODI, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ SANTHAKUMARI, D/O.THIRUPPUR SHANMUGHAN, AGED 27 YEARS, 22/17, VALAYAMKADU, KUMAR NAGAR, SIVASUBRAMANIA NAGAR, THIRUPPUR NAGARASABHA, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.8522/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.323/2007 DISMISSED 9/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.323 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.449/2006. The revision petitioner is the husband who has been ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/= to the wife. Challenging the quantum as well as the liability, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard. The unfortunate couple got married on 5.5.2002 and they started fighting from 2003 onwards and there was a reconciliation by which they joined together and again after an year they separated. The ground alleged is that of cruelty. The wife has spoken about the same and the court below had accepted it and held that the wife is entitled to live separately. I do not find any ground to deviate from the same. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned, the husband would contend that he does not have any work but will insist that the wife is having a better employment in Thiruppur : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.323 OF 2007 and she is not liable to be maintained. A suggestion is seen put regarding the money order sent to Thiruppur. Similarly CPW4 was examined and the court below rightly rejected his evidence. 4. A man who is only 35 years old and a lady even she is having some income has been ordered to be paid maintenance of Rs.500/= only which cannot be said to excessive at all. Therefore there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the court below which requires interference exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The revision fails and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.323 OF 2007