R.P.(FC).No.80/2016 1 2025:KER:27925 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 80 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2015 IN MC NO.132 OF 2014 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: SUDHEESH, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.LATE MANIYAN, ILLIKKAL VEEDU, KATTUKULAM, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) SRI.M.V.ANANDAN SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: 1 SARITHA, AGED 33 YEARS D/O.JANARDHANAN, THENDANKAVIL VEEDU, THEKKEPOTTA P.O., VADAKKEPOTTA ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 687. 2 ANURAG, AGED 6 YEARS S/O.SARITHA, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT SARITHA, THENDANKAVIL VEEDU, THEKKEPOTTA P.O., VADAKKEPOTTA ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 687. 3 ABHEERAG, AGED 4 YEARS S/O.SARITHA, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT SARITHA, THENDANKAVIL VEEDU, THEKKEPOTTA P.O., VADAKKEPOTTA ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 687. BY ADV SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(FC).No.80/2016 2 2025:KER:27925 ORDER This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.132/2014 dated 25.11.2015. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the remaining respondents. The respondents filed the maintenance case against the petitioner. The Family Court after trial, granted monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹3,000/- to the 1st respondent, ₹2,000/- to the 2nd respondent and ₹1,500/- to the 3rd respondent. This revision petition has been filed challenging the said order. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The petitioner has taken up a contention that the 1st respondent is getting ₹6,000/- per month from a thread mill. However, there is no evidence to substantiate the same. The definite case of the respondents is that the petitioner is a rubber tapper and he is having a rubber plantation and earns ₹25,000/- per month. The petitioner has admitted that he is a tapper. But according to him, he gets only ₹6,000/- per month. He is an able bodied person. Therefore, he cannot take up a contention R.P.(FC).No.80/2016 3 2025:KER:27925 that he cannot maintain the respondents for the reason that he is getting only meager income. Considering the means of the petitioner and the requirement of the respondents, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp