IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 693 of 2007() ---------------------------- OP.736/2001 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT : RESPONDENT: -------------------------- D.ANIL KUMAR, SARASWATHY BHAVAN, THALIKKADU, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: -------------------------- RAJI.R.S., D/O.SANTHAMMA, KARIYARAVILA VEEDU, PULAYANARKOTTA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.693 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. In this appeal, the appellant/divorced husband assails the direction for payment of maintenance issued to him under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The court below had directed him to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per mensem each to his wife and child till the date of the order. From the date of the order he has been directed to pay maintenance to the child Rs.1,500/- per mensem. He has been directed to pay the wife past and future maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per mensem. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not want to assail the impugned order on any other grounds. But he contends that the quantum of monthly maintenance awarded to the wife is excessive. The quantum of past and future maintenance awarded under the impugned order may be reduced. This is the only contention raised before us. 3. The appellant is admittedly a clerk in the Revenue Department. Salary certificate of the appellant has not been Mat.Appeal No.693 of 2007 2 produced. Reasonable inferences will have to be drawn by the Court about the probable monthly income of the appellant. There is material to show that the wife is working as a Pharmacist in a Medical Shop owned and run by her mother. There is also evidence to show that she has a small item of property. The court below had issued the direction to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per mensem taking into account the income which she admittedly has from these two sources. Viewed from any angle, we are unable to agree that the amount of Rs.1,000/- per mensem which the appellant, an employee in the Revenue Department, has been directed to pay to his wife is such as to warrant appellate interference by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. In any view of the matter, the quantum of maintenance awarded for the wife does appear to us to be fair, reasonable and just. The same does not warrant interference. 4. This Matrimonial Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-