IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 83 of 2009() --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2008 IN M.C. 27/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR) REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------- C.V. GEORGE, S/O. VARKEY, CHETTETTUKUNEL HOUSE, VALAVOOR KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MINI JOSEPH @ ROSE, KANDATHIL KARA, NADCKAL P.O., TEEKOY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 2. JOJU (MINOR) KANDATHIL KARA, NADCKAL P.O., TEEKOY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P(F.C)No. 83 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kottayam in M.C. 27/2008 where the court ordered the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- to the wife and Rs. 500/- to the child. The husband has filed the revision challenging the quantum. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she had to live separately on account of the behaviour of the husband and that husband is a driver in the KSRTC getting monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- per month and therefore claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- for their maintenance. On the other hand the husband would contend that he is only a temporary employee of the KSRTC, not having permanent job and his income is only Rs. 1,200/- per month and further the wife has got income from her tailoring profession and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. 3. The court examined PW1 and CPW1. The court accepted R.P.(F.C)No. 83/2009 -2- the reason given by PW1 for living separately and also considered the evidence that she did not know tailoring. The court also considered that the husband is a driver by profession. Even if he is a temporary driver of the KSRTC and if he is not having work with KSRTC on a particular day, it will not prevent him from doing any other job as a driver especially in the present days where there is lot of demand for drivers. The court has only awarded the most reasonable maintenance of Rs. 750/- for wife and Rs. 500/- for the child, which cannot be said to be on the higher side. The husband who has got avocation and who is physically fit is bound to maintain the wife and child under law and the court below has considered it in the proper perspective. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety which requires interference at the hands of this court. Therefore the R.P(F.C) lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm