IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 RPFC.No. 137 of 2004 ------------------------------ MC.NO.314/2003 OF FAMILY COURT MANJERI DTD. 20/07/2004. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- CHARUPADIKKAL MUHAMMEDALI, S/O.CHARUPADIKKAL KOLANGOTTU MOIDEEN, AGED 29 YEARS, P.O.PALLIKKAL BAZAAR, CHELEMBRA (VIA). BY ADV. MR.K.P.MUJEEB. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THOTTALI SULAIKHA, D/O.CHEKKU MAMMAD, AGED 27 YEARS, KUMMINIPPARA, P.O.CALICUT AIRPORT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P(F.C)No. 137 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of maintenance in M.C. 314/2003 on the file of the Family Court, Manjeri. The Family Court on consideration of the materials awarded a compensation of Rs. 600/- to the wife towards maintenance. Aggrieved by that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 and RW1 was also done. The only dispute is regarding the quantum. A reading of the evidence of the respondent would show that he admits the income of Rs. 2,300/-. Though the wife has contented that he is having a stationery business, marriage broker and driver, nothing has been proved. It is also come out in evidence that the father of the revision petitioner is having 27 cents of land and also two more sons. One is a carpenter and the other is a coolie worker. It is contended that since he has to look after his parents, he may R.P(F.C) 137/2004 -2- not be able to pay the maintenance. Even admitting the case of the respondent and his income, the maintenance awarded by the court below is extremely reasonable and it is only Rs. 600/-. Therefore I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said decision which requires interference at the hands of this Court. The R.P(F.C) is accordingly dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm