R.P.(FC).No.387/2015 1 2025:KER:27936 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. 387 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2015 IN MC NO.823 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: MANALIKKAL SALAHUDHEEN AGED 30 YEARS S/O HAMZA, MANALIKKAL HOUSE, KODHINI ROAD, CHEMMAD P.O, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: UMMUSALMA AGED 23 YEARS D/O SAIDALAVI, ENNISSERI HOUSE,VELLIYAMPURAM, THAYYALINGAL PO,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 320 BY ADVS. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE RENOY SRI.K.S.ROCKEY SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(FC).No.387/2015 2 2025:KER:27936 ORDER This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Tirur in M.C.No.823/2013 dated 25.3.2015. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed a maintenance case against the petitioner before the Family Court claiming maintenance at the rate of ₹7,500/- per month. The Family Court after trial granted monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹4,000/- to the respondent from the date of petition. This revision petition has been filed challenging the said order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The marriage is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent were living separately. The maintenance case was tried along with O.P.No.973/2013 filed for dissolution of marriage. The said original petition was allowed and the marriage was dissolved. The petitioner has taken a specific plea that the respondent was living separately without any reason and hence, she is not entitled to maintenance. The respondent denied the said allegation and R.P.(FC).No.387/2015 3 2025:KER:27936 contended that she was living separately because of the cruelty of her husband. The Family Court after evaluation of the evidence found that the petitioner exercised cruelty on the respondent and the respondent left the matrimonial home. I see no reason to take a different view. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an autorickshaw driver. According to the respondent, the autorickshaw driven by the petitioner belongs to him and he earns ₹1,000/- per day. Considering the means of the petitioner, 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