2025:KER:26093 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. 436 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.08.2014 IN MC NO.327 OF 2012 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: TINTU SADASIVAN AGED 24 YEARS D/O. SADASIVAN, THOOMBUMKAL HOUSE, MANJOOR.P.O., KOTHANELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR SRI.VISHNU BABU RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ANISH KUMAR V K AGED 31 YEARS S/O. KAMALASANAN, VADAYATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, PALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT ANISH KUMAR.V.K., SENIOR QUALITY CONTROLLING INSPECTOR, STAR SOFT-DRINK COMPANY, P.O. BOX 5178, INDUSTRIAL AREA NO.2, SHARJAH, U.A.E. BY ADV. P.M.ZIRAJ THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26093 RPFC NO.436 OF 2014 2 ORDER This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment passed by the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in M. C. No.327/2012. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The petitioner filed a maintenance case against the respondent claiming maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month. The Family Court after the trial, granted a monthly maintenance of ₹1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the petitioner. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. The marriage is not in dispute. The respondent being the legally wedded husband of the petitioner is legally and morally bound to maintain her. The petitioner alleged that she does not have any job and the respondent is working as Senior Quality Controlling Inspector at Sharjah and he is getting a monthly income of ₹50,000/-. On the other hand, the respondent contended that he is getting a monthly salary of ₹15,000/- only and the petitioner is an MSW holder and 2025:KER:26093 RPFC NO.436 OF 2014 3 deliberately relinquished her job. It is also contended that the petitioner is able to get a decent job. The Family Court fixed monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹1,000/- mainly on the ground that the petitioner is a qualified person and likely to get a job with high salary. However, the fact remains that when the maintenance case was filed, the petitioner did not have any job. The fact that the petitioner is qualified is not a ground to reduce the maintenance amount entitled to her. Even though the respondent has admitted that he is working abroad at Sharjah, according to him, he is getting only ₹15,000/- per month. However, he did not adduce any evidence to show his income. Considering the requirements of the petitioner and the means of the respondent, the monthly maintenance of ₹1,000/- granted by the Family Court appears to be very low. Hence, the maintenance granted by the Family Court is enhanced to ₹3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) per month. The Revision Petition is allowed as above. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR