IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 87 of 2007() ------------------------------ MC.357/2000 of THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------ CHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.LATE KARUNAKARAN NAIR KUNNUMPURATHU THEKKEVILA PUTHEN NEDUMCAUD, KARAMANA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, W/O.CHANDRAN NAIR (WRONGLY STATED), RAJESH NIVAS, KULLAVILA, THALIYAL, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJESH, S/O. CHANDRAN NAIR (AGAIN WRONGLY MENTIONED), RAJESH NIVAS, KULLAVILA, THALIYAL, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.K.V.JAYANTHI THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A NO.2246/2010 IN RPFC. NO.87/2007 DISMISSED 21/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.87 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the FamilyCourt, Thiruvananthapuram in MC.No357/2000. The persons claiming to be the wife and son of the respondent therein prayed for maintenance and the court below declined maintenance to the alleged wife and granted a sum of Rs.400/= per month to the son from 20.11.2000 to 8.1.2005. It is challenging that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. He has persuasively contended before me that the court below should not have arrived that the revision petitioner is the father of the child. Materials are to the effect that the matrimonial disharmony has stared quite earlier and there was a suit as O.S.No.1133/1979. Thereafter O.P.(HMA)No.45/1999 and another case as A.S.No.134/1982. In A.S.No.134/1982 there is a finding to the effect that the wife is a lady leading an unchaste life. On the basis of that document, the court declined maintenance to the wife. The : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.87 OF 2007 wife had also obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in 1999. The minor son is born on 8.1.1987. Even now it is seen that the marriage is in subsistence. When the marriage is in subsistence and a child is born within 280 days and thereafter of the marriage there is a presumption regarding legitimacy of the child. Just because there is a declaration in the year 1982 regarding unchastity, one cannot hold that there was no chance for access for the reason that the parties have separated and joined on several occasions. 3. So, I cannot find fault with the court below for ordering maintenance to the child and it comes only to a period of about 50 months at the most. The amount awarded is also meagre which also cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the family court and therefore it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.87 OF 2007 : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.87 OF 2007