IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 463 of 2007() ------------------------------- MC.300/2004 of FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ DR.RAJ MATHEW, S/O.A.M.MATHEW, PULIMOOTTIL PAIPPAD HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.C.C.NO.1/1588, SOUTH THARAPARAMBU, FORT COCHIN, COCHIN - 1. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. MASTER REEV R.MATHEW, AGED 7 YEARS, S/O.DR.RAJ MATHEW, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, MALAKKARA P.O., ARANMULA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - REPRESENTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, SHEENA R.MATHEW. 2. SHEENA R.MATHEW, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, MALAKKARA P.O. ARANMULA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.463 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 3rd day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order in M.C. No.300/2004 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- is awarded to the minor child payable by the father. The father is a Doctor by profession. The income tax return submitted by father revealed an income of Rs.1,25,000/- per annum. It is also brought out in evidence that the child is studying in a good educational institution and expense is incurred for the same. So, considering those facts the Family Court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month which cannot be considered as an excess amount. Therefore, the quantum of maintenance does not call for inference. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before me that Court should not have granted maintenance from the date of petition but from the date of order. Under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C normally the maintenance is to be given from the date of order but the court below can grant it from the date of petition as well. The learned Family Court had R.P.(F.C) No.463 OF 2007 2 observed in the judgment that since no interim maintenance has been paid in the case, the Court is granting it from the date of petition. One cannot classify it as an excessive exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the Family Court. So, it is also in order. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the order under revision. The revision lacks merits, which is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns