R.P.(FC).No.270/2015 1 2025:KER:27927 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. 270 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.05.2015 IN MC NO.121 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN THE MC: 1 SANDHYA R., AGED 37 YEARS D/O RADHAMONY AMMA, SANDHYA BHAVAN, VRINDAVAN NAGAR, PALLICKAL P.O, MYLAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2 AADYA, AGED 5 YEARS D/O SANDHYA, SANDHYA BHAVAN, VRINDAVAN NAGAR, PALLICKAL P.O,MYLAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SANDHYA R BY ADVS. SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER IN THE MC: AJITH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS S/O THANKAPPAN NAIR, KARANMAYIL, THAZHATHUKULAKKADA, P.O.THAZHATHUKULAKKADA, WORKING IN BRAILLE WITHOUT BORDERS KANTHAR INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL ENTREPENEUR, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, MUKALUMALA P.O, NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED 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.270/2015 2 2025:KER:27927 ORDER The 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the 2nd petitioner is the child born to the 1st petitioner in the wedlock with the respondent. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent was dissolved as per the decree of the Family Court, Kottarakkara in O.P.(HMA) No.60/2014. 2. The petitioners filed maintenance case against the respondent claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹10,000/- to the 1st petitioner and ₹7,500/- to the 2nd petitioner. The respondent filed O.P.(HMA) No.60/2014 for dissolution of marriage. O.P.(HMA) No.60/2014 and M.C.No.121/2013 were tried along with two other original petitions between the parties and a common order was passed. O.P.(HMA) No.60/2014 was allowed and divorce was granted. M.C.No.121/2013 was allowed in part. The claim of the 1st petitioner for maintenance was disallowed. The 2nd petitioner was granted maintenance at the rate of ₹5,500/- per month. This revision petition has been filed challenging the rejection of the maintenance claimed by the 1st petitioner and the quantum of the maintenance awarded to the 2nd petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the R.P.(FC).No.270/2015 3 2025:KER:27927 petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was working as an administrative manager in a private company earning ₹37,000/- per month. The respondent has taken a contention that the 1st petitioner was employed in Rural Development Co-operative Society for a monthly salary of ₹12,000/-, she has landed property with income and so she is not entitled to maintenance. The 1st petitioner admitted that she was an employee of the Rural Development Co-operative Society at Thrikkannamangal. However, according to her, she was working there from 2012 last till the month of November, 2014 and thereafter she has no job. However, during evidence she admitted that in the month of January, 2015, she could not attend the trial of the case since she had to go for a training in connection with her job. Based on the said admission, the Family Court presumed that there is no question of attending a training without having a job. The Family Court also found that the 1st petitioner has admitted that she owns 50 cents of property adjacent to her house and thereafter presumed that she would be having income from the said property. 5. As stated already, the 1st petitioner has a R.P.(FC).No.270/2015 4 2025:KER:27927 definite case that she had employment in Rural Development Co- operative Society only till November, 2014. For the simple reason that she deposed during examination that she did not appear before the court for the trial of the case as she had to undergo a training programme, it cannot be presumed that she was still employed. In the memorandum of revision petition, it is admitted that the training the 1st petitioner attended was part of the teachers training conduced by the National Child Development Council. The further finding of the Family Court that the 1st petitioner would be having income from the 50 cents of land is also without any basis. Therefore, I am of the view that the finding of the Family Court that the 1st petitioner has means to maintain herself requires to be reconsidered. So far as the quantum of maintenance granted to the 2nd petitioner is concerned, considering the means of the respondent and the requirement of the 2nd petitioner, monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹5,500/- granted by the Family Court appears to be reasonable. In view of the above, the finding of the Family Court that the 1st petitioner is employed and has means to maintain herself and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance is hereby set aside. M.C.No.121/2013 is remitted back to the R.P.(FC).No.270/2015 5 2025:KER:27927 Family Court, Kottarakkara for fresh disposal. The Family Court shall give opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence regarding the employment, if any, of the 1st petitioner. The Family Court shall dispose of the MC in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The revision petition is disposed of. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp