IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 6 of 2005() ------------------------------ MC.270/2004 of THE FAMILY COURT, MANJERI. .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S)/ RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- GOPALAN, S/O. CHATHAN, PALAMUTTATH HOUSE, KADAMBODE, PANTHALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- SOBHA M., D/O. LATE SANKARAN, MANNIL VEEDU, O.K. MURI P.O., NEAR NAVODAYA SCHOOL, NELLIPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. MR.K.SHIBILI NAHA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 6 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.270/04. The Family Court had granted a maintenance of Rs.1,000/-. It is challenging the quantum as well as liability this revision is preferred. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would strongly contend before me that since the Court had granted an order for restitution of conjugal rights the Court is not right in finding a justifiable reason for the wife to live separately. It is now a well settled proposition that both these matters have to be looked into in a different context and circumstances. I find from the judgment of the Court below that the Court was satisfied that the respondent is bound to pay maintenance to the petitioner. So far as the quantum is concerned the contention was that the wife is working as a sweeper in a school. The husband is an LIC agent who has become “kodipathi” on five R.P.(F.C.) NO. 6 OF 2005 -:2:- occasions, that too consecutively. He is having a car and is an income tax assessee. Such a husband shall not feel shy to pay a meager amount of Rs.1,000/- to his wife. The Court below has been considerate and only has granted a just and reasonable amount as maintenance. Therefore the order does not suffer from any infirmity and hence the R.P.(F.C.) is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-