IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.NO. 42 OF 2007() -------------------------------- MC.394/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER - COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE RAMAN, CHALAPPARA VEETTIL, CHERUKULAM DESOM, THENKARA AMSOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S) - PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. KUMARI, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.RAMANKUTTY, NEERAMKANNI VEETTIL, PATTASSERY AMSOM, DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. RESHEMA (MINOR, AGED 9 YEARS) D/O.KUMARI, (1ST RESPONDENT.) 3. RAJESH (MINOR) AGED 7 YEARS, D/O.KUMARI (1ST RESPONDENT). 4. RAHUL (MINOR) AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.KUMARI (1ST RESPONDENT) 2, 3 AND 4 MINORS REPRESENTED BY GARDIAN/MOTHER THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C FOR R1 TO 4 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC). NO.42 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of the order granting maintenance in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 4, wife and three children of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is only challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded to respondent No.1 in this revision. 2. It is admitted that petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4. Respondents alleged that petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to mental and physical cruelty and harassment and neglected and refused to maintain respondents. Petitioner in turn alleged unchastity to respondent No.1. He claimed that respondent No.1 is having 25 cents of land and produced Ext.D1 to prove the same. Exhibit D2 is the copy of the settlement of account between himself and respondent No.1 produced to show that he had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of respondent No.1 on 4.1.2001. Exhibit D2 revealed that there was such a deposit on 4.1.2001 but there was no evidence to show that the deposit was made by the petitioner. That amount was withdrawn by respondent No.1 as per two cheques. Court below found that respondents are R.P(FC) No.42 of 2007 -: 2 :- entitled to get maintenance from petitioner. What remained for consideration is only whether the amount awarded to respondent No.1 is excessive or beyond the capacity of petitioner. 3. To respondent No.1, wife aged 30 years Rs.500/- is awarded. I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded is excessive. So far as capacity of petitioner to pay maintenance is concerned, respondents were not able to prove that he has landed property as stated by them. Petitioner claimed that he is a coolie earning at the rate of Rs.60/- per day. When examined as C.PW.1 he stated that his daily income is Rs.100/-. Assuming that he is a coolie by occupation, considering the labour charges prevailing in this part of the State, I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded is beyond his capacity. An able bodied man must be presumed to be capable of earning. Petitioner has that capacity. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order at the instane of petitioner. Revision is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. Revision Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv