RPFC NO. 464 OF 2023 1 2025:KER:28014 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. 464 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2022 IN MC NO.84 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: RAJESH MOHAN M.M AGED 37 YEARS S/O. MOHAN, MANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, OLASSA P.O., AYMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686014 BY ADVS. M.G.SREEJITH P.JAYA SWAPNALEKHA K.T. VIDYAJITH M. BINCY JOSE ROJIN DEVASSY ANIL KUMAR P.T. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2: 1 SANUMOL A.T AGED 37 YEARS RPFC NO. 464 OF 2023 2 2025:KER:28014 ALUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENGALAM SOUTH P.O., THIRUVARPU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686585 2 ABIRAMI AGED 9 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY MOTHER & GUARDIAN SANUMOL A.T., AGED 37 YEARS, ALUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENGALAM SOUTH P.O., THIRUVARPU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686585 BY ADV SUJINI.S THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC NO. 464 OF 2023 3 2025:KER:28014 O R D E R This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in M.C.No.84/2016 dated 17.08.2022. 2. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent. The respondents filed the maintenance case against the petitioner before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in M.C.No.84/2016 claiming monthly maintenance. The Family Court, after trial, granted a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondents as per the impugned judgment. The said judgment is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The petitioner, being the legally wedded husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent, is legally and RPFC NO. 464 OF 2023 4 2025:KER:28014 morally bound to maintain them. It has come out in evidence that the 2nd respondent is having a disability of 90%. It has also come out in evidence that the 2nd respondent requires Rs.2,000/- per month for medicine. Even though the petitioner has taken up a contention that the 1st respondent is employed, there is no evidence to substantiate the same. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner is working in a company and earns Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioner has admitted that he is a coolie worker. According to him, he earns Rs.700/- per day. 5. Considering the requirement of the respondents and the means of the petitioner, the amount of monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be absolutely reasonable. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS RPFC NO. 464 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:28014 APPENDIX OF RPFC 464/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE -1 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL RECORDS DATED 17-10-2024