2025:KER:25983 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. 31 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2013 IN MC NO.150 OF 2010 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA REVISION PETITIONER/S: SHAHUL HAMEED SHAMSUDEEN AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, KARIMBALOOR HOUSE, PUNNALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PIN-689695. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR RESPONDENTS: 1 SIBI AGED 29 YEARS RAZANA MANZIL(SINI MANGALAM), PERUMANUR MURI, ARACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PIN-691532. 2 RIHANA (MINOR) AGED 10 YEARS, SINI MANGALATHU VEEDU,THADIKKADU MURI, ARACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PIN-691532, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT. 3 RIZANA MINOR (MINOR) AGED 7 YEARS 2025:KER:25983 RPFC NO.31 OF 2015 2 SINI MANGALATHU VEEDU, THADIKKADU MURI, ARACKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,PIN-691532 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER THE IST RESPONDENT. 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25983 RPFC NO.31 OF 2015 3 ORDER This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Kottarakkara in M. C. No.150/2010 dated 27.04.2013. 2. The revision petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court after the trial found that the 1st respondent is not entitled for maintenance as she is able to maintain herself. However, the Family Court granted a monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) each to the 2nd and 3rd respondents as per the impugned order. The petitioner challenges the impugned order granting maintenance to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. The paternity is not in dispute. The petitioner being the father of the 2nd and 3rd respondents is legally and 2025:KER:25983 RPFC NO.31 OF 2015 4 morally bound to maintain them. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner is conducting a furniture business and earns income. Considering the requirements of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the means of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance of ₹3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) each granted by the Family Court to the 2nd and 3rd respondents 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