IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 166 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.278/2003 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ K.V.BALAKRISHNAN, 61 YEARS, S/O.KIZHAKKEVEETIL NARAYANI CHETTICHIAR, MUTHUKAD, RAMAMKUTH P.O. NILAMBUR R.S. NILAMBUR AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- PADMAVATHI, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.PAIKKADAN KANNAN CHETTIAR, MUTHUKAD RAMAMKUTH P.O. NILAMBUR R,S, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.RAJENDRAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NOS.17978/2005 & 10722/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.166/2005 DISMISSED 17/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.166 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No. 278/2003. The wife moved an application against the husband for maintenance and the court granted an amount of Rs.700/= per month to the wife as maintenance. It is against that decision, the husband has come up before this court in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. The learned counsel would contend before me that the revision petitioner also has moved an application for maintenance against his sons and the same has been dismissed by a common order and an appeal is filed against that order. He would strongly contend before me that the revision petitioner has become disabled and is unable to look after himself and therefore, he would not be saddled with the liability of maintaining the wife. It has come out in evidence that the present : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.166 OF 2005 respondent is the first wife in which five children are born. It is also stated that the husband has got connection with more ladies and there are six children born to them in him. So altogether he is the father of 11 children. It is submitted by the wife and the son that the husband is running a provisional store as well as a tea shop and is deriving a considerable income. The family court found that documents are not produced but accepted the same on the background that the petitioner in the MC is living very close by and to see the revision petitioner every day. It is also stated that even as per the version of the revision petitioner he is a skilled person and is spending about Rs.4,000/= for purchase of medicine every month. The documents produced by him would reveal that he is having Bronchitis, Tuberculosis, Blood pressure and chest problems etc. There is no material to hold that he is prevented from doing any work. It has to be remembered that the court below has observed that he appears to be a man of no such ailment. His conduct itself would reveal that it is not so because he had taken the luxury of running after ladies and large : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.166 OF 2005 number of children are born in them. Now his attempt is to get out of the liability to pay maintenance to the wife who had given birth to 5 of his children cannot be forgotten. Therefore I also hold that the family court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the husband is bound to maintain the wife and is capable of maintaining the wife and therefore should pay a reasonable amount as maintenance. I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision rendered and therefore the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.166 OF 2005