RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018 1 2025:KER:28094 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. 536 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2018 IN MC NO.176 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: SREEJITH AGED 37 YEARS S/O GOPALAN, PALARI HOUSE, KANJIRAPUZHA, PALAKKAD PIN 678591 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 SAJINI AGED 26 YEARS D/O CHANDRAN, PADINJAREMURI VEEDU, THARUVAKURISSI, PALAKKAD PIN 68701 2 SREEHARI, AGED 4 YEARS (MINOR), S/O SREEJITH, PADINJAREMURI VEEDU, THARUVAKURISSI, PALAKKAD, PIN 68701, (MINOR 2ND RESPONDENT, RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018 2 2025:KER:28094 REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT, SAJINI). BY ADV SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD) THIS REV. PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018 3 2025:KER:28094 O R D E R This revision petition has been filed challenging the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.176 of 2016 dated 28.09.2018. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent. The respondents filed a maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court, after trial, granted a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,500/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent from the date of the petition as per the impugned order. 3. I have heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.K.Mohanan (Palakkad), the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The marriage and the paternity are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 1st respondent were living RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018 4 2025:KER:28094 separately. The petitioner had taken up a contention that since the 1st respondent was living separately without any reason, she was not entitled to maintenance. However, the Family Court, after evaluation of evidence, found that there was a justifiable reason for the 1st respondent to live separately. I see no reason to interfere with the said factual finding in this revision petition. 5. The petitioner has contended that the 1st respondent is employed and has income. The 1st respondent has denied the same. No evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to substantiate the said plea. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner is running a fancy shop and is also engaged in survey work, and earns a substantial income to support the respondents. On the other hand, the contention of the petitioner is that he is an employee at a fancy shop run by one Mr.Mustafa and earns only Rs.5,000/- per month. However, he did not adduce any evidence to prove his income. The petitioner could have either produced the salary certificate or examined his employer. RPFC NO. 536 OF 2018 5 2025:KER:28094 6. 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 reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS