IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 RPFC.No. 124 of 2004() ---------------------- MC.437/2003 of FAMILY Court, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- P.V.RAMAKRISHNAN PERUVANNAN, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. LATE JUNDORA KORA PERUVANNAN, PANGADAM P.O. KANDOTH, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------------------- 1. V.KARTHIYAYANI, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. V.RAMAN, VANNATHAN HOUSE, KUNIYAN P.O., KARIVELLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. RANJITHKUMAR K.V., AGED 16 YEARS, VANNATHAN HOUSE, KUNIYAN P.O., KARIVELLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT (REP.BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT) 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 124 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court Judge, Kannur in M.C.437/03. The wife and son moved an application against the revision petitioner for maintenance. Admittedly, the marriage took place in the year 1984 and they started living separately and the maintenance petition is filed only after about 13 to 15 years after separate living. The conduct of the wife is to the effect that the husband was a drunkard who used to assault her and he had deprived of her ornaments and therefore she was forced to live separately. It is also contended by her that she is living with her mother and the brother-in-law and she was looked after by them. As both of them died there is no source of income and therefore she was forced to file the petition for maintenance. 2. The husband, on the other hand would contend that she is living separately without any reason and he is not R.P(F.C.) NO. 124 OF 2004 -:2:- having any avocation at all. There is an allegation raised by the wife that the husband is leading life with one Shyamala. So far as the separate living is concerned it is admitted that they are living separately for long number of years and the husband has no real interest in the welfare of the wife and he has not given any amount also by way of maintenance to her till this time. Therefore the finding of the Court below that mother and the child are liable to be maintained cannot be found fault with. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned it is submitted that the husband is a Theyyam specialist coupled with doing labour work and therefore he can pay a considerable amount as maintenance. On the other hand the revision petitioner would contend he has no source of income at all and therefore he should not be directed to pay maintenance. 4. So far as the income is concerned there is no acceptable evidence to fix the income. The husband is aged about 44 years at the time of the petition. He is an able bodied man. He is bound to look after his wife and child. R.P(F.C.) NO. 124 OF 2004 -:3:- Therefore reasonable amount has to be ordered even construing that he is only an ordinary labourer. The son is to attain majority on 12.4.05. So taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances I modify the order of the Family Court as follows: 5. I direct the revision petitioner herein to pay at the rate of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance from the date of petition till 12.4.2005 to the wife and son and thereafter at the rate of Rs.750/- to the wife. The son is only entitled to get the maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- till 12.4.05 for the reason that he attains majority on that date. The R.P.(F.C) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-