IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 650 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.1034/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- DEVADAS.K., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN, PALLIKANDATHU VEEDU, KANNADI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS SMT.K.S.CHANDRIKA SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. JESSY V.K., D/O.KUPPANIKITTY, KALLIMULLI, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. 2. RESHMA, AGED 8 YEARS, D/O.DEVADAS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY MOTHER/GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT JESSY THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.650 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. In this appeal the appellant challenges a decree for payment of past maintenance and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per mensem respectively to his wife aged 34 years and a minor girl child aged eight years. 2. Marriage is admitted. paternity is not disputed. Separate residence is accepted. The husband has claimed divorce and the said prayer for divorce stands dismissed. 3. In these circumstances, the only dispute regarding the claim for maintenance is about the means of the rival contestants. There is absolutely nothing adduced in evidence to show that the wife has any properties or means of income. The husband admittedly is a farmer. There is a contention that he has other sources of income also. But the same has not been substantiated satisfactorily. He admittedly has 33 ½ cents of land in his name. Mat.A.No.650/09 -2- 4. As stated earlier, the only contention raised is against the quantum of maintenance. Going by the needs of the wife and child, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the discretion exercised by the Family Court in fixing the quantum of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and 1,000/- per mensem is erroneous to warrant invocation of the appellate jurisdiction. Going by the means of the appellant, as already observed, he has 33 ½ cents of land in his name. Even reckoning him as just an able bodied person, we are unable to agree that the quantum of maintenance fixed is in any way excessive or unreasonable as to justify appellate interference. The challenge raised must in these circumstances fail. This Mat.Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn