2025:KER:25926 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. 23 OF 2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2014 IN MC NO.226 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: SINEESH K.V. AGED 32 YEARS S/O. K. VARGHESE, SIJITHA NILAYAM, UDINOOR AMSOM DESOM, KASARAGOD DISRICT. BY ADV. M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 MARINA MICHAEL AGED 27 YEARS D/O. LATE K.M.MICHAEL, MERINA NIVAS,PERIYAM, EMBETTE. P.O.PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, PERIYARAM VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 141. 2 ANAMIYA SINEESH (MINOR) AGED 4 YEARS D/O. SINEESH ANTONY, 3 BABY MAREENA (MINOR) AGED 1 YEARS D/O. SINEESH ANTONY (RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR 2025:KER:25926 RPFC NO.23 OF 2015 2 GUARDIAN MARINA MICHAEL 1ST RESPONDENT.) BY ADVS. SMT.O.V.BINDU SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI 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:25926 RPFC NO.23 OF 2015 3 ORDER This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the Family Court, Kannur in M. C. No.226/2013 dated 27.10.2014. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The respondents filed a maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court after the trial, granted a monthly maintenance of ₹3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the 1st respondent and ₹2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) each to the 2nd and 3rd respondents as per the impugned judgment. The said judgment is under challenge in this Revision Petition. 3. The counsel for the revision petitioner relinquished the vakalat. Hence, notice was issued and served to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is not present. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The petitioner does not have a case that the 1st respondent 2025:KER:25926 RPFC NO.23 OF 2015 4 is employed or has any income. The petitioner has taken a contention that the 1st respondent left his company without any reason and therefore she is not entitled for maintenance. However, the Family Court after evaluating the evidence found that the 1st respondent was constrained to leave the matrimonial home due to the ill treatment by the petitioner. Therefore, there is sufficient reason for the 1st respondent to live separately. I see no reason to take a different view. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is an electrical contractor. He has admitted that he earns ₹14,000/- per month. Considering the requirements of the respondents and the means of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court as per the impugned judgment appears to be very reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR