IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 354 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.118/2006 DATED 25.5.2007 OF FAMILY COURT , KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT K.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KARICHI, RESIDING AT VETRADY, KUWATTY, KINANOOR VILLAGE, P.O. KOLLAMPARA, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 2 & 3 1. ASWIN , AGED 8 YEARS, S/O. K. BALAKRISHNAN. 2. ARUNKUMAR, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O. VASANTHA, BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER K.VASANTHA, BENGALAM, MADIKAI VILLAGE, BENGALAM P.O., HOSDURG TALUK NOW RESIDING AT C/O.PAYYADAKKAN SASIDHARAN, S/O. POKKAN,VETRADY, KUWATTY, P.O. KOLLAMPARA, HOSDURG TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.354 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 5th day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasargod in M.C 118/2006. The wife and two children moved an application for maintenance and the court refused maintenance to the wife and ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- to the first child and Rs.500/- to the second child and it is against that decision, husband has come up in revision. A perusal of the order would reveal that the husband has a great suspicion about his wife and even raised a contention that the second child is not born to him in her. But the court found that it was a birth which had taken place during the subsistence of marriage and there was no evidence to prove non access and held that the presumption under Section 112 of Evidence Act would come to the rescue and therefore found that the said child was born to him in his wife. R.P.(F.C) No.354 OF 2007 2 2. Turning to the quantum. The revision petitioner is the only son of his mother. He admits that he is a coolie. Considering the wage set up and the other conditions prevalent in the society today and also the minimum requirement for survival, it cannot be held that the order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- to the 1st child and Rs.500/- to the 2nd child is excessive. The learned counsel raised an apprehension that the mother is not living in a proper fashion. It is for the revision petitioner, if everything is true, to move appropriate authority for appropriate action with respect to the welfare of the children. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns