IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 416 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.280/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAMOHAN, AGED 51, S/O. CHAKITHARA KRISHNANKUTTY, KURUMBILAVU VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- INDIRA, D/O. KODAKATTIL AYYAPPAN, KURUMBILAVU VILLAGE, KOTTAM DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SHOBY K.FRANCIS THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.10712/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.416/2007 DISMISSED 25/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHHAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.416 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thrissur in M.C.No.280/2006. The second wife had claimed maintenance against the husband and the court below has ordered a maintenance of Rs.500/= per month to the wife. It is challenging that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the family court should have applied its mind in a better manner and recorded some reasons for ordering the quantum of maintenance. A perusal of the order would reveal that the petitioner in the maintenance case is the second wife and she had been married after the death of the first wife. The revision petitioner is maintaining his three children in the first wife. It is also admitted that he is willing to pay maintenance to the wife, but he would contend that he will not be in a position to pay more than Rs.100/= in a month. : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.416 OF 2007 3. It has to be remembered that maintenance of Rs.100/= will be equivalent for dis allowance of the prayer for maintenance and therefore, I think that considering the present set up and the fact that there is some employment for the husband, a nominal amount of Rs.500/= granted by the family court need not be disturbed. Therefore I find that there is nothing to interfere with the quantum of maintenance ordered. Therefore the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.416 OF 2007