R.P.(FC) No.355/2008 1 2025:KER:25840 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. 355 OF 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2008 IN MC NO.337 OF 2005 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: 1 MUHAMMED AFLAH S/O. MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 7 YEARS,, (DATE OF BIRTH - 22/12/2001), MINOR 2 FATHIMA AFNA D/O. MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 3 YEARS,, (DATE OF BIRTH - 21/05/2005) MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN (PETITIONERS 1 AND 2), ASMA, D/O.ALIKUTTY,MELETHEVARKANDY,VALLIKUNNU,, P.O. PANTHEERANKAVE, KOZHIKODE. RESPONDENT/REVISION PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: MUJEB REHMAN, S/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN,, KUNDAMPURAM HOUSE, MATHARA,, P.O. GURUVARYOORAPPAN COLLEGE,, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI SRI.P.SANJAY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(FC) No.355/2008 2 2025:KER:25840 ORDER This revision petition has been filed dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded in M.C.No.337/2005 by the Family Court, Kozhikode. 2. The revision petitioners are the children of the respondent. They filed maintenance case against the respondent claiming maintenance at the rate of ₹2,500/- each per month. The Family Court after trial granted monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹750/- to the 1st petitioner and ₹500/- to the 2nd petitioner as per the impugned order. It is challenging the said order, this revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. Before the Family Court, the respondent has admitted the paternity of the 1st petitioner and disputed the paternity of the 2nd petitioner. He contended that he is not the father of the 2nd petitioner. Since the respondent disputed the paternity of the 2nd petitioner, the respondent and the 2nd petitioner were sent to DNA test at Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram. The DNA test confirmed that the respondent is the father of the 2nd petitioner. Thus, he is liable to maintain the petitioners. At the time of filing the R.P.(FC) No.355/2008 3 2025:KER:25840 maintenance case, the 1st petitioner was aged three years and ten months and the 2nd petitioner was aged five months. According to the petitioners, the respondent is conducting a petty shop and he earns ₹15,000/- per month. However, the respondent contended that he has no job. He has no case that he has any physical disability to do any job. 5. Considering the requirement of the petitioners, the monthly maintenance awarded by the Family Court appears to be very low. Hence, the monthly maintenance awarded to the 1st petitioner is enhanced to ₹1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month and to the 2nd petitioner is enhanced to ₹1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month which shall be paid by the respondent. The revision petition is allowed as above. sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp