IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 164 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.54/2005 of FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------ ASSAINER, S/O.MEERAN, THELAMPURAM VEETTIL, ADIMALI KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ----------------------------------- 1. M.M.SELMA, W/O.ASSAINER, AKKOTHU VEETTIL, VELLAKKAYAM BHAGAM, IDUKKI VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 By SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BENNY VARGHESE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 164 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thodupuzha in M.C.54/05. The husband dissatisfied with the granting of maintenance of Rs.400/- to the wife has come up in revision before this Court. Strangely this is a case where the mother was prepared to hand over nine month old baby to the father. The amount which was obtained at the time of the marriage in the form of different goods were also returned as Rs.2,25,000/- evidenced by Ext. D1. There is no recital in Ext.D1 regarding the maintenance. Further it has to be held that even if there is a recital in the agreement that, one will not claim maintenance one cannot defeat the statutory right. It has come out in evidence that the wife some times go to the bakery of the father and helps him there. She has already been given about 2 lakhs which is due to her. I am referring to this only for the reason there were amounts which is available with the lady. Now the Family R.P.(F.C.) NO. 164 OF 2005 -:2:- Court most probably on considering these basic materials had ordered only a very nominal amount as maintenance i.e. Rs.400/- which by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore I decline to interfere with the order of the Family Court and hence the revision is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-