IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 515 of 2007() ----------------------------- MC.409/2007 of fAMILY COURT MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- BAVA, S/O.MUHAMMED, ANNACHAMPALLI HOUSE, KAVAPURAM, ATHRISSERI P.O., TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.T.V.NEEMA SRI.P.GANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SAINABA, D/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, CHERUKARA HOUSE, PERINCHEERI, OMACHAPUZHA PO, TIRUR TALUK. 2. IRSHAD, 15 YEARS (MINOR), S/O.SAINABA, MINOR RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN FOR R1& 2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.515 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 3rd day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malapuram in M.C.No.409 of 2007. The wife and the minor son moved an application for maintenance and the court directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.750/- to the child. Aggrieved by the same the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. The learned counsel would contend that the revision petitioner had undergone surgery and it has incapacitated him from doing hard work and therefore, the quantum of maintenance ordered is requested to be interfered with. The Family Court has considered this aspect in para 10 of the order wherein the court held that even in chief examination, the revision petitioner has admitted that surgery was done R.P.(F.C) No.515 OF 2007 2 25 years back and thereafter he had gone abroad and was leading a prosperous life therein. The other contention that the 1st petitioner is looked after by her son in the 1st marriage also was not accepted on the ground that there is duty cast upon the husband to maintain the wife. Further there is no evidence to show that the wife is having any independent income or sufficient means to look after herself. Considering the present cost of living especially the escalation of costs order of maintenance at Rs.1,000/- to wife and Rs.750/- to child can never be said to be arbitrarily or excessive. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of the Family Court which calls for interference in this revision. Therefore, the revision lacks merits and hence dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns