R.P.(FC) No. 287 of 2015 ..1.. 2025:KER:25735 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. 287 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2015 IN MC NO.841 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ABDULLA KORAMANGALATH AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.AYAMU HAJI, KORAMANGALATH HOUSE, PANTHALINGAL, NAMBAD, MAPPADAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -676 542. BY ADV SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: FATHIMA NECHIKKATTIL AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED, NECHIKATTIL HOUSE, NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, OTHUKKUNGAL, OTHUKKUNGAL PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 528. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(FC) No. 287 of 2015 ..2.. 2025:KER:25735 ORDER This revision petition has been filed challenging the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Tirur in M.C.No. 841 of 2013 dated 25.04.2015. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed a maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. The Family Court after trial, granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/-. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. I have heard Sri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. According to the respondent, she does not have any job or source of income. It is alleged that the petitioner was employed at Gulf and he has sufficient bank balance and R.P.(FC) No. 287 of 2015 ..3.. 2025:KER:25735 monthly income of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner, it was stated that he has no job or source of income and he is depending on his brother and relatives for his maintenance. It is also contended that he is suffering from so many ailments. 5. The petitioner does not have any case that respondent is having job or income. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner has contracted a second marriage and he is having three children in the said wedlock. Admittedly, he is maintaining the second wife and children. That alone shows that he has sufficient means. Therefore, there is no reason to contend that he cannot maintain the respondent. The petitioner has also taken up a contention that the respondent is living separately without any valid reason. The fact that the petitioner has contracted another marriage is a valid reason for the respondent to live separately. R.P.(FC) No. 287 of 2015 ..4.. 2025:KER:25735 Considering the ability of the petitioner and the requirements of the respondent, the monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- granted by the Family Court appears to be very reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA