IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 RPFC.No. 325 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.181/2007 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S)/ RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- VAMANAN EMBRANTHIRI, S/O. VENKTTARAMANA THANTHRI, AGED 31 YEARS, KIZHAKKENEDUMPILLY MADOM, EROOR SOUTH TRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADVS.MR.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR MR.VISHNU SOMAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- NISHA AGED 21 YEARS, W/O. VAMANAN EMBRANTHIRI, NIRMALYAM PERUMPILLY.P.O. MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DIST. R1 BY ADVS.MR.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SMT.V.SHYLAJA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(FC)No.325 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the respondent in MC.No.181/2007 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The respondent, the wife of the revision petitioner filed the above petition before the lower court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, with an allegation that the respondent was deserted by the revision petitioner and was leading adulterous life and that she is devoid of means to maintain herself. Whereas the revision petitioner, who is a priest in a temple had been earning Rs.30,000/- per month. 2. The revision petitioner admitted the matrimonial relationship and contended that the respondent had been R.P.(FC)No.325 of 2009. -: 2 :- making wild allegation with malafide intentions and that the respondent left the matrimonial house with no good reason and that the revision petitioner had been getting only a meagre income of Rs.2,500/- as salary and that the attempt of the revision petitioner to resume cohabitation turned in vain and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. After due enquiry, the lower court arrived a finding that the respondent was deserted by the revision petitioner and that she is entitled to get separate maintenance. Having taken into account of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- was awarded from the date of petition ie. 23.6.2007. Assailing the legality correctness and propriety of the above order granting maintenance, this revision petition was filed. 4. Today when the revision petition came up for admission it is submitted from both sides that there is little likelihood of parties resuming together and that the revision R.P.(FC)No.325 of 2009. -: 3 :- petitioner is prepared to pay maintenance at the rate now awarded by the lower court which is just and reasonable. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought time for payment of arrears from the date of petition. 5. In the above circumstance, I find that the order awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month is just and reasonable and no way be vitiated. There is no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay arrears provided half of the arrears is deposited within six weeks from today and continue to pay at the rate now awarded by the lower court without any fault. In the event the revision petitioner fails to pay half of the arrears in six weeks, the respondent is at liberty to realize the arrears in lump. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-