2025:KER:26007 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. 78 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2014 IN MC NO.32 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CR. PETITIONER: SHIHABUDHEEN S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, SHIHAB MANZIL, PANAVALLY PANCHAYATH, WARD-12, WEST OF PETROL PUMP, POOCHACKAL PO, CHERTHALA, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MUHAMMED KUNJU, SHIHAB MANZIL, PANAVALLY PANCHAYATH, WARD-12, WEST OF PETROL PUMP POOCHACKAL P.O, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SHEMEENA W/O.SHIHABUDHEEN, SHEMINA MANZIL, WARD-7, PANAVALLY P.O. CHERTHALA. 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:26007 RPFC NO.78 OF 2015 2 ORDER This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Alappuzha in M. C. No.32/2013 dated 03.12.2014. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed a maintenance case against the petitioner under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance. The Family Court after the trial, granted a monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the respondent as per the impugned order. The said order is under challenge in this Revision Petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The marriage is not in dispute. The respondent alleged that she does not have any income, the petitioner is employed abroad and earns ₹1,00,000/- per month. Though the petitioner has contended that the respondent is doing 2025:KER:26007 RPFC NO.78 OF 2015 3 stitching works and earns income from her home, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the same. The petitioner has admitted that he is working as an electronic mechanic in Saudi Arabia. He did not enter into the box to prove his income. Considering the requirements of the respondent and the means of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) granted by the Family Court appears to be very reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR