R.P.(FC) No. 252 of 2023 ..1.. 2025:KER:26511 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 252 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2022 IN MC NO.28 OF 2018 OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: SREEJITH GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED 37 YEARS, S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, SREENILAYAM HOUSE, VALIYAKULAM, UDAYAMPEROOR.P.O, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307 BY ADVS. K.P.MADHU XAVIER THOMAS V.T. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 MEKHA MOHANAN D/O MOHANAN, AGED 35 YEARS, ASHARIKKUDIYIL HOUSE, MULAVOOR.P.O, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- ., PIN - 686673 2 AVANTHIKA SREEJITH (MINOR) AGED 5 YEARS, D/O SREEJITH GOPALAKRISHNAN, NOW RESIDING AT ASSARIKUDIYIL HOUSE, MULAVOOR P.O., MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-. REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER MEKHA MOHANAN, PIN - 686673 R.P.(FC) No. 252 of 2023 ..2.. 2025:KER:26511 BY ADVS. P. M RAFEEK (PATTAM) RADHIKA V.R.(K/677/2022) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(FC) No. 252 of 2023 ..3.. 2025:KER:26511 ORDER This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Family Court, Muvattupuzha in M.C.No.28 of 2018 under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2. The respondents filed maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance. After trial, the Family Court granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.2. It is challenging the said order, this revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard Sri. K.P.Madhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.M.Rafeek, the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondents are R.P.(FC) No. 252 of 2023 ..4.. 2025:KER:26511 residing separately. The Family Court after evaluation of the evidence found that the respondents are living separately only due to the neglect and refusal on the part of the petitioner to look after and maintain them. I see no reason to interfere with the said finding. The petitioner does not have any case that the respondent No.1 is employed and has any job or income. According to the respondent No.1, the petitioner is doing business, has landed properties and earns more than Rs.70,000/- per month. The petitioner denied the same and contended that he is an auto rickshaw driver and earns only Rs.7,000/- per month. According to him, his mother also is residing with him and he has to support his mother. However, it has come out in evidence that his mother is a retired Government employee and gets a monthly pension of Rs.22,000/-. The petitioner has admitted that he was working in Info Park as data entry operator earlier. The petitioner was aged 33 years at the time of filing the R.P.(FC) No. 252 of 2023 ..5.. 2025:KER:26511 maintenance case. He has no case that he has any physical inability to do job. He is an able bodied person. Therefore, he cannot contend that from the income now he gets, he cannot support his wife and child. Considering the requirements of the respondents and the means of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be very reasonable. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA