IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 177 of 2004() ---------------------- MC.309/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI DATED 30/10/2004. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/(RESPONDENT): --------------------------------------------------------- P.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR, R/O. PAZHERI HOUSE, MANNOOR P.O., FEROKE VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): /(FIRST PETITIONER (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SECOND PETITIONER) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SRUTHI, AGED 8 YEARS (MINOR), D/O. P.KARUNAKARAN, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, K.SHEELA, D/O.YASODA, R/O. M.K.NIVAS, JUBILEE ROAD, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== R.P.(FC) No.177 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of March 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed by the husband against the wife challenging the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.309 of 2004. The unfortunate couple are working as teachers and they are blessed with one child. The court below considered the entire materials and directed to pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.1,250/-. In the revisional memorandum it is contended that there was an agreement between the husband and wife whereby it was agreed to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- to the child. It is also contended that the child is living with the father. Both these contentions cannot be accepted for the reason except for the mere averment in the counter statement that no evidence is let in, no document is produced and not even a suggestion is put to the wife and further no evidence is adduced even in the chief examination of the husband. Therefore the factum of an agreement as well as the child is living with the father cannot be accepted. 2. Now we will turn to the quantum. Admittedly, the petitioner is a RP(FC)177/2004 -:2:- teacher. The husband is also a teacher. It is submitted that after deduction, he is only getting Rs.4,500/-. In order to prove that also, I do not find any document produced before the court below. When he is a teacher having a basic salary of Rs.7,750/-, even according to him, and as the child is born to two teachers, it is certain that she will be in a better environmental circumstance with an inclination to study in a good school and expect a reasonable life. Since the mother is also having income as a teacher, the court below has taken into consideration that aspect as well and restricted the maintenance amount to the child to Rs.1,250/-. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Hence it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-