IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 257 of 2007() --------------------------------- MC.214/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER (S) /RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- KAMALAKSHA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.THIMMAPPA, R/AT PALLATHADKA HOUSE, AJJAWARA P.O., AJJAWARA, SULLIA, DK, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. MR.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. LATHA AGED 36 YEARS, W/O KAMALAKSHA, D/O.KUSUMA GOPALA RAO, HOSAMANE ROAD, RAMDASNAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. VINEETHA, AGED 2 YEARS, (SECOND RESPONDENT IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER THE FIRST RESPONDENT). R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. T.SETHUMADHAVAN MR.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.6971/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.257/2007 Dismissed 19.02.2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 257 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.214/05. The wife and son are petitioners before the Court claiming maintenance. The husband had taken a stand that the child is not of him and ultimately after analysis the Court found that the mother and son are living separately with reasonable cause and directed the husband to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.750/- to the child per month. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Learned counsel would contend that the order passed by the Family Court is not proper and correct and it requires interference. So far as the separation is concerned whether it is with or without proper reason is a matter to be looked into in a case of maintenance. I had perused the evidence available before the Court and here is a husband who had even challenged the paternity of the child and the R.P(F.C.) NO.257 OF 2009 -:2:- Court has taken the decision to send them for a DNA test which revealed that the father is the revision petitioner himself. So this is the attitude of the husband in life towards the wife and no wife can tolerate these types of attitude of a husband and so the Court below correctly found that they are entitled to maintenance. 3. The next question is regarding the quantum. Though it is stated that the husband is having larger extent of property and money it has come out in evidence that he is only a labourer and that his mother is having some arable land in the State of Karnataka. So the factual evidence is to the effect that he is only a manual labourer that too in the State of Karnataka and therefore I feel it cannot be correct to ask him to pay Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.750/- to the child. He has to maintain himself and the wage structure in Karnataka is not as lucrative in Kerala and I feel this is a fit case where some maintenance has to be given whereby the husband is to be directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- to the child from the date of petition. R.P(F.C.) NO.257 OF 2009 -:3:- Thus the R.P.(FC) is partly allowed and disposed of as stated above. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-