IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 137 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.693/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- M. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. M. AYYAPPAN, MANNANGADAN HOUSE, ANAKKALLU, UPPADA P.O., EDAKKARA AMSOM, DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P. LATHIKA, D/O. K.P. VELAYUDHAN, KALLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATHIRIPADAM P.O., EDAKKARA VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VIJITHA K.P., D/O. BALAKRISHNAN, 17 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.SAJU J.VALLYARA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.15238/2005 IN RP(FC) NO.137/2005 DISMISSED 11/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.137 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.693/2004. The wife and daughter moved an application for maintenance against the husband and the court below ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/= to the wife and Rs.600/= to the child. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. It is seen that contentions are raised regarding unchastity of the wife and it has also come out in evidence that the marriage has ended in divorce. The wife would contend that the husband had ill treated her and had misappropriated her ornaments. The husband is a coconut climber by profession. Since the marriage itself has ended in divorce, a further question of reunion or reason for separate living may not be of much importance. 3. Therefore the only question will be regarding the quantum. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner very strongly contends before me that the revision petitioner is a mentally ill person and therefore he cannot be directed : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.137 OF 2005 to pay maintenance. The materials available would show that the husband did have some mental problem and the order of the family court would reveal that at that point of time even the husband did not have a case of any mental illness. Further if there is any mental illness, the court would have certainly found it out for the reason that the court has examined him as RW1 in the case. Further he himself had represented before the court without the help of anybody. He is a coconut climber by profession and order of maintenance granted is only Rs.400+600 which by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore there is no merit in the revision and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.137 OF 2005