IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 RPFC.No. 112 of 2004(E) -------------------------------------- (ORDER DATED 29-6-2004 IN MC.NO.347/2003 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MANJERI) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------- M.VINAYAN,AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN,MUNNA MONTHAYIL HOUSE, MUNAMBATH,MATTATHOOR P.O.,KOTTAKKAL VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.NARAYANAN, MUNNA MONTHAYIL (H), MUNAMBATH, MATTATHOOR, KOTTAKKAL.. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------- 1. BIJI P., AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. BHASKARAN,PUZHEMMAL HOUSE, PAZHAMALLOOR P.O.,KOOTTILANGADI VIA., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DIYA (MINOR) 1 1/2 YEARS, (MINOR RESPONDENT REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT) BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2008 ALONG WITH RPFC NO. 162 OF 2004 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.)No.112 of 2004-C & R.P.(F.C.) No.162 of 2004-E ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008. O R D E R The former among the captioned matters is by the respondent in M.C.No.347/2003 of the Family Court, Manjeri, while the latter is by the first petitioner therein. The parties are accordingly referred to by their status before the Family Court. (2). The Family Court, by the order impugned, concluded that the first petitioner is not entitled to any amount by way of maintenance and granted an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month for the second petitioner child. The findings against the first petitioner is that she had not succeeded in establishing that the separation is due to the cause that has arisen from the fault of the respondent. On the evidence, the Family Court has concluded that the first petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance. It was found by the Family Court on facts, that the separation of the first petitioner is not due to any cause attributable to the respondent. (3). In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no jurisdictional error, legal infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders. These revision petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. MS