IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 89 of 2010() --------------------------- OP.246/2006 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- SURESH KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, P.O.POONATH, PONNIKOTH, THRIKUTTISSERI, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- ATHIRA, MINOR REPRESENTED BY GRANDMOTHER, POOVACHALIL RADHA, D/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.SANKARAN NAIR, POOVARACHALIL, KOOTHALI P.O.,KOYILANDY TALU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- Mat.A.No.89 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT P.S.Gopinathan, J. 1.Appellant is the respondent in O.P.246/06 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode. Respondent is the daughter of the appellant. She, through her maternal grandmother, approached the lower court seeking a decree for past maintenance from 20.3.2004 to 20.4.2006 and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month thereafter. It is alleged that the appellant married the mother of the respondent on 7.4.1999 and the respondent daughter was born out of the wedlock. The respondent contended that because of the ill-treatment of the appellant, the mother of the respondent committee suicide. However, the respondent was taken care of by her maternal grand parents. Alleging that she is entitled to get a decree of maintenance from the appellant, the respondent approached the lower court. Mat.A.89/10. 2 2.The appellant, though took various contentions, does not dispute the claim that the respondent is entitled for maintenance. The main contention that was advanced is that the grand parents are not entitled to the custody of the respondent, whereas the appellant was entitled to. O.P.95/05 is pending in that regard. The family court found that since the respondent has no independent source to maintain herself, the appellant, who is the father, is liable to maintain the respondent and the respondent is entitled to an order for separate maintenance. 3.Ext.A3 would show that the respondent had been suffering some ailments. Despite the ailments, she is fairing well in her studies and the grand parents are providing better education. The appellant is stated to be a concrete worker, getting Rs.300/- as daily wages. Taking the entire circumstances into account, the lower court awarded past maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from 20.3.2004 to 20.4.2006, totaling to an amount of Rs.12,500/- and future maintenance at Rs.750/- Mat.A.89/10. 3 per month. To determine the quantum, the lower court took into account of the requirement of the respondent, the value of essential commodities and the income of the appellant. We find that the amount awarded by the trial court is not at all exorbitant. Neither it is beyond the means of the appellant, even if the income of the appellant is lesser than the amount mentioned earlier. We feel that it is on the lower side and find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine. We make it clear that the order impugned would be subject to the result of O.P.95/05. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.4/03.