2025:KER:28079 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. 97 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2014 IN MC NO.300 OF 2012 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: DINAKARAN AGED 43 YEARS S/O.SARASWATHIAMMA, MUNDAMBERI HOUSE , P.O.VEMBALLOR, KODUNGALLORE TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001 BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER: 1 JAYALAKSHMI AGED 42 YEARS D/O.DEVEKI AMMA, PAITTILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001 2 DIJESH (MINOR) AGED 16 YEARS S/O.DINAKARAN REP. BY JAYALAKSHMI, D/O.DEVAKI AMMA, PAITTILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001 2025:KER:28079 RPFC NO.97 OF 2016 2 3 ADERSH (MINOR) AGED 12 YEARS S/O.DINAKARAN REP. BY JAYALAKSHMI, D/O.DEVAKI AMMA, PAITTILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680001 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:28079 RPFC NO.97 OF 2016 3 ORDER This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda in M. C. No.300/2012 dated 16.04.2014. 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 ₹4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) to the 1st respondent and ₹2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) each to the 2nd and 3rd respondents as per the impugned order. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The 1st respondent gave evidence before the Family Court that the petitioner is a driver by profession and earns ₹25,000/- per month. However, no contra evidence had been 2025:KER:28079 RPFC NO.97 OF 2016 4 given by the petitioner. He did not enter into the box and even did not cross examine the 1st respondent. Considering the means of the petitioner and the requirements of the respondents, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court as per the impugned order appears to be absolutely reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR