IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 RPFC.No. 83 of 2006() ----------------------- (AGAINST ORDER IN M.P.119/06 IN M.C.35/06 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM) ...................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------------------- SULAIMAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOLLATTU HOUSE, CHUNANGAMVELI, EDATHALA PO, ALUVA 5. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SUNEER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS. --------------------------- 1. FATHIMA BEEVI, AGED 43, KOLLATTU HOUSE, CHUNANGAMVELI, EDATHALA PO, ALUVA 5. 2. SUFEER,A GED 22, S/O.SULAIMAN, DO. DO. DO. 3. SHAMEER, AGD 21, S/O.SULAIMAN, DO. DO. DO. 4. SHAMEENA, AGED 19 YEARS,M D/O.SULAIMAN, DO. DO. DO. 5. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA FOR R1TO4 R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 83 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred by the respondents in M.C.38/06 challenging the interim order of maintenance ordered by the Family Court, Ernakulam. The contention of the respondent is total denial of the marriage and paternity. It has to be remembered that according to the first petitioner he has married her and three children are born in their wedlock. In support of the contention the petitioner has produced Exts.A6 and A7 which are the photocopy of the ration card and photocopy of the identity card. In both these documents the first petitioner is described as the wife of the respondent and the members 3 to 5 are shown as the children of them. In the identity car also Fathima Beevi is described as the wife of Sulaiman. So prima facie materials are available at this stage to grant interim maintenance. So far as the two children to whom maintenance has been granted it has to be stated they are physically handicapped R.P(F.C.) NO. 83 OF 2006 -:2:- entitled to get maintenance under the provisions of law. The revision petitioner is a mason by profession and it is a very lucrative profession getting maximum income and there is scarcity for getting masons now-a-days for doing work. The Family Court has granted only a reasonable interim maintenance of Rs.900/- to the wife and Rs.450/- each to the disabled children. The said order does not call for any interference and therefore the R.P.(F.C) is dismissed. The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records immediately. The Court shall try to dispose of the main case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of records. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-