The maintenance under Family Law must reflect the financial realities of both parties, heavily relying on credible evidence presented during proceedings.

O R D E R

This revision petition has been filed under Section

19(4) of the Family Court Act read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal procedure Code, challenging the order dated 21.10.2022 in M.C.No.32 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The revision petitioners, who are the wife and children of the revision petitioner, had approached the Family Court and sought maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each on the assertion that they did not have any means of of income for their livelihood. The specific case put up by the respondents before the Family Court was that the revision petitioner had been employed abroad for a pretty long time. Now he has been doing the business of clothes sale and had been earning Rs.50,000/- per month.

4. The revision petitioner filed objection resisting the contentions. Three specific contentions raised in the objection. The first contention was that the first respondent had employment as a lab technician and the second contention was that she has been residing separately without any justified reasons. The third contention is to the effect that the respondent did not have any permanent job and he had been doing door to door clothes sale and his income was only Rs.10,000/- per month.

5. The Family Court ventured the matter. PW1 examined and Ext.A1 marked on the side of the respondents. RW1 and RW2 examined on the side of the revision petitioner. Finally, the Family Court negatived the contention raised by the revision petitioner that the first respondent was employed, for a want of evidence.

6. While challenging the impugned order also, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner failed to point out even weak piece of evidence to substantiate the employment of the first respondent in any manner. Therefore, finding of the court below in this regard is absolutely right.

7. Coming to the second contention, the learned Family Court Judge addressed the same relying on the evidence given by PW1 as well as RW1, after referring the ratio of the decision inRojo Thomas Vs. Minnu Thomas [ 2022 (1) KHC 119 ]. It was found by the Family Court that detailed instances of cruelty had been spoken by PW1 justifying her separate residence and therefore, this contention also was found against the revision petitioner.

8. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents also, it could be gathered that the first respondent is justified in living separately in the facts and circumstances, as stated in the order.

9. Now, the third contention is regarding the quantum of maintenance.

10. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that initially, an order was passed ex-parte granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the children. The said order was challenged before this Court by way of revision. This Court, after setting aside the said order, remanded the matter back to the Family Court for disposal on merits. It was, thereafter, on appreciation of evidence, the present order was passed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,500/- to the first respondent and Rs.5,250/- each to the second and third respondents. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the quantum may be modified and limited to the extent of the amount granted by the ex- parte order, since the revision petitioner has been trailing to maintain himself as well as the age old mother who has no person other than the revision petitioner to look after and who has been residing along with the revision petitioner.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents zealously opposed reduction of quantum of maintenance and he read out the relevant evidence with specific mention to the evidence of RW1. It is argued that RW1 even taken flimpsy grounds to deny maintenance and he raised contention that since the children are studying in school, the