IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 258 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.408/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------- 1. KAMALAKSHI.E., AGED 51 YEARS W/O. KUNHIRAMAN KUNNOTH EDADATHIL HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SATHEESAN, AGED 29 YEARS S./O.KUNHIRAMAN KUNNOTH EDADATHIL HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT: -------------------- KUNHIRAMAN.K., AGED 58 YEARS S/O.KAMARAN, KUNNOTH HOUSE CHORKALA, KURUMATHOOR AMSOM DESOM TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------- R.P.F.C. NO. 258 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.No.408 of 2006. The 51 year old wife and 29 year old son moved an application against 63 year old husband for maintenance. The Family Court rejected the maintenance to the son on the ground that though he is deaf and dump he is a tailor by profession capable of looking after himself. So far as the wife is concerned the court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.450/- per month against which the wife has come up in revision for enhancement. Heard learned counsel for both sides. It is unfortunate that in the late evening of the matrimonial life the husband and wife live separately under some pretext or other and fight for maintenance. They are blessed with 3 children in the wedlock, of whom one is the second petitioner. I am inform that the other son and daughter are married and well settled in life. The Family Court found that the husband is having a pension of Rs.2,500/- and some landed properties from which rubber is tapped by him. Equally the Family R.P.F.C. NO. 258 OF 2009 2 Court held that the wife is also having properties (covered Ext.B1 to B3) and that she has also got major children who will look after her. The court also found that she was also going for work and making some amount. It is the case of the husband that he had to leave his house, and live with his mother and therefore is bound to look after her also. So taking into consideration all the facts together and the capacity of both the parties and the income derived by the parties the Family Court struck a balance and awarded a reasonable amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs.450/- per month. I feel in this revisional jurisdiction as the order is not affected by any perversity, illegality and irregularity it does not call for any interference. Therefore, the revision lacks of merits and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. pm