IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 116 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.680/2004 of FAMILYCOURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- KUNDUVAYIL ABDUL KABEER, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 27, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PONMALAM AMSOM, DESOM. BY ADV. MR.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAHARABAN, D/O. THIYYAN KUNHALAVI, AGED 21, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, KOTTUR AMSOM, DESOM, RESIDING AT MANGATTUPULAM. 2. PATHUMMASHANA, 1 ½ YEARS, MINOR RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.13030/05 IN RP(FC) NO.116/2005 DISMISSED 04/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.116 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.680/2004. The wife and daughter moved an application against the revision petitioner for maintenance and the court has granted a maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/= to the wife and Rs.350/= to the child. Dissatisfied with the same, this revision is preferred by the husband. 2. It was initially suggested that the wife has no reason to live separately and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. The family court had tried the matter along with a restitution of conjugal right petition filed by the husband and had rejected the same. So it was found that the question of separate living is only with valid reasons. 3. Now turning to the quantum. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner persuasively and strongly contends before me that the revision petitioner is a disabled person and therefore the maintenance amount cannot be paid by him. Even at the time of the marriage, he was disabled : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.116 OF 2005 and he had married with the avowed intention of looking after his wife and children to be born in the wedlock. At least he has admitted that he is a helper of an electrician. Now a days nobody will work for a sum of Rs.75/= per day in Kerala. So the argument that the income is extremely low cannot be accepted. The amount of maintenance ordered is only a paltry sum of Rs.500/= to the wife and a meagre amount Rs.350/= to the child. These amounts under any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be on the higher side. It is stated that the revision petitioner is a disabled man but he is not totally disabled and he is dong work. So I cannot interfere with the quantum given in this case. Therefore, the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl