IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 319 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.331/2005 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- CHITHAMBARAN, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, IDATHATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, PUTHICHAVILAKOM, NANDOORKOLLA DESOM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. KOCHU THREASIA ALIAS SANTHA, D/O.ROSSILI, RESIDING AT VADAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, IRUMBAKONAM, VADAKKEKARA DESOM, PERUMKADAVILA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD. 2. NISHARANI, AGED 10 YEARS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT MOTHER. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC)No.319 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by the Family Court, Nedumangad in M.C.No.331 of 2005 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, his wife and daughter at the rate of Rs.500/- each, per month. Petitioner married respondent No.1 on 23.5.1991 and respondent No.2 is born in that wedlock. Marriage with respondent No.1 or paternity of respondent No.2 are not disputed. Respondents alleged that petitioner subjected respondent No.1 t to harassment and cruelty demanding more ornaments and money. Respondents therefore had to withdraw from the company of petitioner. In the meantime petitioner filed O.P.(HMA) No.252 of 1998 seeking divorce. According to the petitioner, he did not desire a divorce but filed that petition to compel respondent No.1 to join him to avoid a divorce. Ext.P2 shows that an exparte order for judicial separation was ordered in that case. In the year, 1999 respondents filed a petition before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking maintenance from the petitioner. That case was transferred to the Family Court, Nedumangad and re-numbered as M.C.No.331 of 2005. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1 and spoke to her case. Petitioner gave evidence as CPW1. While denying the allegation of cruelty and harassment he claimed that respondent No.1 is working in a society and is earning. To disprove the case of respondent No.1 that petitioner married RP(FC)No.319/2009 2 another lady, Laila in January, 2001 petitioner examined CPWs 2 and 3. Courts below did not place reliance on the evidence of CPWs 2 and 3. CPW4 was examined to show that respondent No.1 is employed in the society.. Ext.X1 is the register produced by CPW4. CPW4 stated that respondent No.1 is a member of the Industrial Weavers' Society at Kollam but she is not a worker. Ext.X1 and evidence of CPW4 show that for some casual work respondent No.1 was given wages for nine months in the year, 2007 and six months in the year, 2008. Payment ranged from Rs.332/- per month to a maximum of Rs.1,129/- per month. Court below found that respondent No.1 has no regular job and directed petitioner to pay maintenance. 2. So far respondent No.2 is concerned, irrespective of the propriety of its custody, petitioner is bound to maintain her. Amount awarded to respondent No.2 is only Rs.500/- per month which by no means is excessive since child was aged six years at the time of making application. 3. So far as maintenance awarded to respondent No.1 is concerned, that also is Rs.500/- per month. Petitioner stated that due to fall from a tree he is unable to earn but no proper evidence in that line is produced. 4. On going through the order under challenge and hearing learned RP(FC)No.319/2009 3 counsel I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. There is no merit in this revision. It is only to be dismissed. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks