2025:KER:25860 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 231 OF 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2013 IN MC NO.188 OF 2011 OF FAMILY COURT, VATAKARA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: IBRAHIM AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. CHEKKU KALLERI MADATHIL HOUSE, POST VAKAYAD, NADUVANNUR KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SAINABHA AGED 34 YEARS W/O. IBRAHIM NADUVILAKANDI HOUSE, M.M.PARAMBA, POST EAKAROOR UNNIKULAM VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 574 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25860 RPFC NO.231 OF 2013 2 ORDER This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Vatakara in M. C. No.188/2011 dated 20.04.2013. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed a maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court after the trial, granted a monthly maintenance of ₹2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) to the respondent as per the impugned order. The said order is under challenge in this Revision Petition. 3. The petitioner or his counsel is not present. I have perused the records. 4. The marriage is not in dispute. The petitioner does not have a case that the respondent is employed or has any income. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner is engaged in real estate business and earns ₹25,000/- per month. She has also stated that the petitioner 2025:KER:25860 RPFC NO.231 OF 2013 3 is having landed properties and buildings from which he earns income. The petitioner has denied the same. However, Exts.A2 and A3 would show that he has landed properties and building. The petitioner is an able-bodied person. There is nothing on record to show that he has any physical disability to do job and earn income. Considering the ability of the petitioner and the requirement of the respondent, the monthly maintenance of ₹2,500/- granted by the Family Court appears to be reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR 2025:KER:25860 RPFC NO.231 OF 2013 4 APPENDIX OF RPFC 231 /2013 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO.1645/13 DATED 07.05.2013 ISSUED BY SUB REGISTRAR’S OFFICE, NADUVANNUR IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN RE-SY. NO.129/8 OF AVIDANELLUR VILLAGE. RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL