IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 271 of 2009() --------------------------------- MC.688/2008 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- GIREESH,S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, CHERIYIL PUTHAN VEETTIL,'GIREESH NIVAS', PAVUKONAM POST,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, (OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION LIMIT) BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SRI.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. SWAPNA,D/O.NARAYANAN KUTTY, MELECHEMMANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.ELAD,ELAMKULAM AMSOM, ELAD DESOM,PERINTALMANNA TALUK. 2. ABHISHEK,6 YEARS (MINOR). 3. ADITHYAN,2 YEARS (MINOR). (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.271 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of July 2009 ORDER The order for payment of maintenance in favour of wife and two children is under challenge in this revision. It is admitted that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 24-03-2002 and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are born in that wedlock. Respondents alleged that petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty and harassment which necessitated their separate residence. They claimed maintenance from petitioner stating that he is a business man. Petitioner denied the allegations against him and claimed that he is only a mechanic in the showroom of M/s. Hero Honda earning Rs.2500/- per month. He offered to look after the children. Both sides adduced evidence in the court below. It came out in the evidence of petitioner that he is in the habit of taking drinks (According to the respondents he is a habitual drunkard). He admitted that some time back he was engaged in business in sale of automobile spare parts at Chennai but now he is working as a mechanic as aforesaid. Court below found from the evidence that respondents are entitled to separate residence and maintenance. When petitioner offered to look after the children it indicated that he was not prepared to do that in the matter of wife. Having regard to the habit of the petitioner as admitted by him and the evidence on record discussed by the court R.P.F.C.No.271 of 2009 2 below I do not find reason to interfere with the finding that respondents No.1 is entitled to separate residence and claim maintenance. So far as respondent Nos.2 and 3, children aged 6 and 2 years respectively, is concerned petitioner has to maintain them irrespective of the propriety of their custody with respondent No.1. 2. What remained is only whether amount awarded is excessive or is beyond the capacity of petitioner. To respondent No.1 aged 25 years at the time of application only Rs.1500/- is awarded. That amounted only to Rs.50/- a day. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 aged 6 and 2 years, respectively at the time of application are awarded only Rs.800/- and Rs.300/-, respectively per month. Having regard to the requirements of respondents and the cost of living I am not inclined to think that amount awarded is excessive calling for interference in revision. 3. Turning to the capacity of petitioner to pay the said amount, it is admitted that he is a mechanic. He is a skilled worker capable of earning. Court below observed that now a days even manual laborers get anything around Rs.300/- a day. Court below observed that petitioner could earn around Rs.400/- a day. Petitioner inspite of claiming that he is a salaried man did not produce the salary certificate to prove his actual income. Assuming that his salary is only Rs.2500/- per month, he has to find all lawful ways and means to R.P.F.C.No.271 of 2009 3 augment his income so as to meet the requirements of his wife and minor children. It is not disputed that he is able bodied and skilled. I am not persuaded to think that amount awarded is beyond his reach. There is no merit in this revision and it is therefore dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/