Dismissed¶29

Hareesh.B v. Anupama V.T

Kerala HC4 Apr 2025RPFC/439/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court, Ernakulam — R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024, decided 04.04.2025 by Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath — Maintenance revision against Family Court, Punalur (M.C.No.96 of 2023, order dt. 13.12.2023) — Quantum of maintenance: Rs.3,000/- p.m. to wife, Rs.3,500/- p.m. to minor son upheld — Key points: wife's employment merely seasonal (one month, Onam season, textile shop at Anchal); no permanent job or source of income; petitioner manager in automobile shop; means and requirements test applied — Outcome: revision petition dismissed; impugned order not interfered with.

What did the court decide?

None; the impugned maintenance order was not interfered with and the revision petition was dismissed. ¶29

Hareesh.B Vs Anupama V.T — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024

¶2

2025:KER:29039

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶7

RPFC NO. 439 OF 2024

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2023 IN MC NO.96 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MC.C:

¶10

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)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN M.C:

¶12

1 ANUPAMA V.T AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.VASUDEVAN, MANIVILASOM, NEDIYARA P.O, KURIVIKKONAM, ANCHAL VILLEGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306

¶13

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

¶14

BY ADVS. DR PRADEEP K P T.T.BIJU(K/878/2003)

¶15

R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024

¶16

2025:KER:29039

¶17

T.THASMI(K/934/2010) M.J.ANOOPA(K/968/2013) POOJA V.M.(K/1740/2023)

¶18

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024

¶20

2025:KER:29039

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

3. I have heard both sides.

¶25

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

¶26

R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024

¶27

2025:KER:29039

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶32

APA

¶33

R.P.(FC) No. 439 of 2024

¶34

..5..

¶35

2025:KER:29039