IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 RPFC.No. 485 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.344/2003 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- RAJESH RAJU,S/O. M.D.RAJU, MOOLAYIL VEEDU,T.C. 34/503, VATTIYOORKAVU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PATHIRIPALLY S.KRISHNAKUMARI SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. K.C.MARYLENE, D/O.K.M.CHACKO, RESIDING AT SIC TAGORE PATH, BIJILIA RAMGARH CANTLE, HASARIBAGH DISTRICT,JHARKHAND. 2. BABY MARYLENE,(MINOR) RESIDING AT SIC TAGORE PATH, BIJILIA RAMGARH CANTLE, HASARIBAGH DISTRICT,JHARKHAND. ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM FOR R1-2 SMT.K.P.SANTHI FOR R1-2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.)No.485 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.344/2003 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents 1 and 2, who are the wife and son of the revision petitioner filed the above proceedings under section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court found that the 1st respondent is not entitled to separate maintenance. But, the second respondent who is admittedly the son of the revision petitioner, is found entitled to get separate maintenance. The revision petitioner is reportedly employed in Talent India, a pharmaceutical Company. According to the respondent, revision petitioner is getting a monthly income of Rs.30,000/-. According to the revision petitioner his salary is Rs.4,500/-. But, he suppressed his salary certificate. In this back ground, there is nothing wrong in inferring that the salary of the revision petitioner would be much more, though not Rs.30,000/- as contended by the respondent. In this circumstance, the trial court ordered maintenance to the second respondent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- from 4/9/2003, the date of petition till the date of R.P.(F.C.)No.485 of 2007 2 order and thereafter @ Rs.1,500/- per month. Admittedly the second respondent is devoid any income for his maintenance and is being maintained by first respondent who is living separate. The claim for maintenance to the 1st respondent was disallowed only for the reason that she is not obeying a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Having due regard to the present rate of essential commodities, the price index and the nature of requirement and the probable income of the revision petitioner the quantum awarded is just and reasonable. There is no error, illegality or impropriety. Hence this revision petition is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. skj.