IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 146 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.561/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- P.P. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. KEENERY CHANDAN KUNHU, RESIDING AT PUTHIYA PURAYIL PALAKKUNNU, P.O. KARIVELLUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- LIJA A.M., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. A.M. JAYACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT OTHAYOTH HOUSE EDAKKAD P.O., KADACHIRA IN KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 146 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.561/03. The wife moved an application for maintenance and the Family Court ordered a sum of Rs.1,500/- to be paid as maintenance from the date of order. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that there is no evidence to show any valid reasons for living separately and further that the amount of maintenance ordered is high. The Family Court had considered the evidence of PW1, the petitioner. There was no evidence tendered by the revision petitioner in the case. The petition for maintenance was filed on 16.12.2003. The husband had sent a notice only on 22.12.2003 directing the wife to go and stay back with him. The court below found that it is only a methodology adopted to defeat the case of the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 146 OF 2005 -:2:- wife. It is also to be stated that the wife has deposed before Court about the reasons for separate living and the husband is not mounting the box at all. Therefore the evidence of PW1 was accepted which cannot be said to be a wrong. The next question is regarding the quantum. It has to be stated admittedly that the revision petitioner is working abroad. The wife would contend that his salary is Rs.50,000/- per month whereas he would contend that it is only Rs.4,000/-. I am not prepared to accept the case of the revision petitioner that he is working for a salary of Rs.4,000/- abroad. The amount awarded as maintenance is only Rs.1,500/-. It is only just, if not on the lower side. Therefore the quantum also does not require any interference. Hence the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-