IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 464 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.429/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- SUBHASH.A.K., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SARASAN, SHANTHABHAVANAM, THIRUVANNUR POST, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER : ------------------------------------ PRIYA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.KANDANKUTTY, PRIYA NIVAS, VALIYAPARAMB POST, KOZHIKODE TALUK, ELETTIL, KODUVALLY-673 572. ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 464 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.429/08. The Family Court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and it is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. Admittedly the marriage now stands dissolved. As stated by the Family Court a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance until she remarries or that she is leading an adulterous life. Neither has she remarried nor there is any accusation of any adulterous life. So under law she is entitled to claim maintenance. 3. Now the next question is the quantum. The wife would contend that the husband is a proprietor of a bakery called Santha Bakery and also having partnership in the printing press run by his brother. The husband would contend that he is only a workman in the printing press run by his R.P.(F.C.) NO. 464 OF 2009 -:2:- brother and he is only having a meager income. Whatever it may be, he is an young man who is capable of making money and it is his moral as well as legal responsibility to maintain his wife including the divorced wife. The Family Court has ordered only a meager amount of Rs.1,000/- per month and therefore I do not propose to interfere with the said decision. But I make it very clear any observation made in this judgment shall not affect the rights of the parties in the matrimonial appeal pending before the Division Bench. Parties are also at liberty to settle the matter in between them. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-