IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 460 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.72/2007 of FAMILY COURT MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------------------------------------ KARAPPAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KUNNAMANGALATH HOUSE, BOOTHANAM, KURUMBALANGODE, MALAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------------- 1.K.SUSEELA. D/O.VELAYUDHAN, KAIPALLY HOUSE, THEKKUMPADAM,KAPPIL,WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2.AKIL-MINOR, REPRESENMTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT-MOTHER- GUARDIAN ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.460 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 3rd day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malapuram in M.C.No. 72/07. The revision petitioner was ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- to the child and Rs.1,400/- to the wife payable from the date of filing of the M.C. It is against that decision that the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that the court below erred in conferring the paternity of the child on the petitioner without adequate materials. It is seen from the order that the husband moved an application before the Family Court for a declaration that the minor petitioner is not his child and the competent court after considering the materials, held that the husband is not entitled to get such a declaration and therefore dismissed his claim. It is seen that no appeal is preferred against that judgment and therefore, it has R.P.(F.C) No.460 OF 2007 2 become final. Therefore, at this stage the husband cannot challenge the correctness of the same in maintenance case when the declaratory relief is declined by a competent court of Civil jurisdiction. Therefore the said contention will not lie. 3. Now, the second question is regarding the quantum of maintenance. The Family Court held that the husband is able bodied healthy man who can go for a coolie work and held that he will derive an income of Rs.175/- per day and could work for 25 days in a month. Considering that aspect, the court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,400/- to the wife and Rs.600/- to the child. It has to be remembered that the husband has to look after the other members as well and being a casual worker who has to do manual work, the exertion will be high and expenses for him will also be high. So, I feel little leniency can be shown in the matter by reducing the maintenance of wife from Rs.1,400/- to 1,250/- at the same time retaining the order of maintenance to the child. 4.Therefore R.P.(FC) is disposed of by reducing the maintenance of the wife from Rs.1,400/- to 1,250/- and retaining the maintenance of the child at Rs.600/- payable from the date of petition. The mother is authorised to receive the amount. R.P.(F.C) No.460 OF 2007 3 This revision is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns