IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 451 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.116/2005 of FAMILY COURT , KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED, MANDOTT, VAZHAKKAD P.O., CHERUVATTOOR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.RESHMI POULOSE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. SARA.K., 22 YEARS, D/O ABOOBACKER, KANHIKKATTIL, KANNIPARAMBA P.O., MAVOOR (VIA), KOZHIKODE. 2. ANEENA SHERIN(MINOR), AGED 2 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN, SARA.K., KANHIKKATTIL, KANNIPARAMBA P.O., MAVOOR (VIA), KOZHIKODE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 451 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.116/05. The husband who has been directed to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- to the child has come up in revision challenging the liability as well as the quantum. 2. Perused the records. The unfortunate couple got married on 13.11.2002 and a child has been born in the wedlock. It is the grievance of the wife that the husband and the members of the family used to ill treat her continuously and they are always demanding more amount. It is also alleged that they accused her to the effect that wife is not beautiful and that the husband had a love affair, he could have married her. It is clear from the evidence made available that the parties have reached a stage beyond reconciliation and therefore I cannot find fault with the Family Court when it finds that the wife is entitled to have separate maintenance. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 451 OF 2007 -:2:- The next question is regarding the quantum. Really there are no materials to prove the income of the wife or the husband. Wife had categorically denied about any employment and the husband would say that he is depending on his father. Things would indicate that all is not well with the husband and that he is little slow in understanding the matters. But it is recorded that he appears to be a healthy man. Therefore it is obligatory on his part to maintain his wife and child. Even if one goes for a manual work a reasonable amount of Rs.150 to 175/- per day can be obtained. So taking note of these situations I feel that the amount awarded by the Family Court is just and reasonable and that does not call for any interference. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-