RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021 1 2025:KER:26231 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. 57 OF 2021 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.04.2019 IN MC NO.203 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: JOHN JOHNSON AGED 51 YEARS S/O.K.C. JOHN, PONMADIRAM, NELLIKKALA P.O., ELANTHOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PIN-689 643 BY ADVS. A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER S: 1 UGENETT MARY AGED 49 YEARS D/O. GEORGE, KUDAKUTHUMPARAMPIL, THOPPUMPADY P.O., KOCHI,PIN-682 005 2 JOSEPH JOHNSON, AGED 12 YEARS S/O. JOHN JOHNSON, KUDAKUTHUMPARAMPIL, RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021 2 2025:KER:26231 THOPPUMPADY P.O., OCHI, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND HIS NEXT FRIEND URGENT MARY, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. GEORGE KUDAKUTHUMPARAMPIL, THOPPUMPADY P.O., KOCHI,PIN-682 005 BY ADVS. PHILIP T.VARGHESE THOMAS T.VARGHESE(K/000516/1995) ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM(K/001758/1999) V.T.LITHA(K/278/2006) K.R.MONISHA(K/915/2013) JIJO PAUL(K/1009/2023) ANJALI SUNIL(K/532/2024) ANJALI G.KRISHNAN(K/439/2008) THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021 3 2025:KER:26231 O R D E R The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent claims that the 2nd respondent is the son born out of the wedlock between her and the petitioner. The paternity of the 2nd respondent is disputed by the petitioner. 2. The respondents filed a maintenance case against the petitioner as M.C.No.203/2013 claiming monthly maintenance. M.C.No.203/2013 was tried along with O.P.No.1238 of 2013 which was filed for past maintenance and recovery of gold ornaments and O.P.No.1061 of 2008, which was filed for divorce. The Family Court have rightly allowed the petition granting maintenance to the respondents. The said judgment is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. I have heard Sri.A.T.Anilkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Philip T.Varghese, the learned counsel for the respondents. RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021 4 2025:KER:26231 4. The marriage is not in dispute. As stated already, the petitioner has disputed the paternity of the 2nd respondent. To substantiate his contention that the 2nd respondent is not his son, he produced Ext.A1 medical certificate and examined the doctor who issued Ext.A1, as PW2. As per Ext.A1 and the evidence of PW2, it is seen that the petitioner was under treatment from 13.05.2005 to 30.09.2005 for Erectile Dysfunction. The certificate would show that the petitioner was having Epidermal Cyst. PW2 deposed that due to this, there was no hope for his organ of generation. However, the genuineness of Ext.A1 was disputed by the 1st respondent. The Family Court, on appreciation of evidence found that Ext.A1 cannot be accepted as such. 5. In O.P.574 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, the parties underwent a DNA test and obtained Ext.X1 report. It would show that the 2nd respondent is the child of the 1st respondent and the RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021 5 2025:KER:26231 petitioner. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not his son was repelled by the Family Court. 6. The 1st respondent contended that she does not have any independent source of income. Though it has come out in evidence that she is working and gets some income from a catering business conducted by her brother, there is nothing on record to show that she has any permanent source of income. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner's parents have a multi storied auditorium and a hardware shop. The petitioner contended that the hardware shop is conducted by his mother and he has no involvement in the said business. However, the Family Court fixed the monthly earning of the petitioner as Rs.30,000/-. It is true that it was based on a guesswork. 7. Both counsel submitted that the 1st respondent is no more. A memo has also been filed to that effect. Therefore, the challenge against the grant of maintenance to the 1st respondent need not be considered. Considering the requirement of the 2nd RPFC NO. 57 OF 2021 6 2025:KER:26231 respondent and the ability and means of the petitioner the quantum of maintenance granted to the 2nd respondent does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS