R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024 ..1.. 2025:KER:29039 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 439 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2023 IN MC NO.96 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MC.C: HAREESH.B AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.BALADEVAN, 'ANJANAM', AGASTHYACODE, AMBALAM MUKKU, ANCHAL P.O, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 BY ADV R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN M.C: 1 ANUPAMA V.T AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.VASUDEVAN, MANIVILASOM, NEDIYARA P.O, KURIVIKKONAM, ANCHAL VILLEGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 2 ABHINAV HARI [MINOR], AGED 10 YEARS, S/O.ANUPAMA, REP. BY ANUPAMA V.T [1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN], MANI VILASOM, NEDIYARA P.O, KURUVIKKONAM, ANCHAL VILLEGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306 BY ADVS. DR PRADEEP K P T.T.BIJU(K/878/2003) R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024 ..2.. 2025:KER:29039 T.THASMI(K/934/2010) M.J.ANOOPA(K/968/2013) POOJA V.M.(K/1740/2023) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024 ..3.. 2025:KER:29039 ORDER This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Family Court, Punalur in M.C.No.96 of 2023. 2. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2. The respondents filed a maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance. The Family Court after trial, granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.3,500/- to the respondent No.2. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The petitioner being the legally wedded husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 is legally and morally bound to maintain them. The petitioner has contended that R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024 ..4.. 2025:KER:29039 the respondent No.1 is working in a textile shop at Anchal. However, the respondent No.1 has stated that she worked there only for one month during Onam season on seasonal vacancy and thereafter she did not have any job. There is no evidence to show that respondent No.1 has any permanent job or source of income. Admittedly, the petitioner is a manager in an automobile shop. Considering the means of the petitioner and the requirements of the respondents, the monthly maintenance granted by the Family Court appears to be very reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024 ..5.. 2025:KER:29039 APPENDIX OF RPFC 439/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, CRL.M.P NO. 54/2024 IN M.C NO. 96/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR DATED 27-09-2024