2025:KER:28343 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 62 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2019 IN MC NO.179 OF 2017 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: SHIVADASAN, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.KANDAMUTHASN, BENCY VILLA, CAHNTHIRAM VEEDU, PALLASANA P.O., PALGHAT DISTRICT-678 505. BY ADVS. ABRAHAM SAMSON SMT.LOVELY SAMSON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER NOS.1&2: 1 SUNITHA, AGED 29 YEARS D/O.KRISHNAN KORATHODI, AANDIMADOM, AKATHETHARA, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR, PALGHAT DISTRICT-678 651. 2 LAYA AGED 3 YEARS D/O.SIVADASAN(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.1 SUNITHA, AANDIMADOM, AKATHETHARA, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR, PALGHAT DISTRICT, PIN-678 651. 2025:KER:28343 RPFC NO.62 OF 2020 2 BY ADV. NIREESH MATHEW THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28343 RPFC NO.62 OF 2020 3 ORDER This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M. C. No.179/2017 dated 29.11.2019. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent. The respondents filed a maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court after the trial, granted monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹4,500/- (Rupees Four thousand and five hundred only) to the 1st respondent from the date of the petition and ₹3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the 2nd respondent from the date of the petition till the date of the order and at the rate of ₹4,500/- (Rupees Four thousand and five hundred only) per month from the date of the order. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The petitioner being the legally wedded husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent is legally and 2025:KER:28343 RPFC NO.62 OF 2020 4 morally bound to maintain them. 5. The 1st respondent alleged that the petitioner is working as a painting contractor at Coimbatore and earns ₹1,00,000/- per month. However, the petitioner contended that he is only a painting assistant under a contractor and earns only ₹400/- per day. The Family Court after evaluating the evidence found that a painter is capable of earning ₹800/- per day and reckoning the said amount as the daily income of the petitioner, his monthly income was fixed at ₹20,000/-. I see no reason to take a different view. The petitioner does not have any case that the 1st respondent has any job or source of income. Considering the means of the petitioner and the requirements of the respondents, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court as per the impugned order appears to be absolutely reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR