The inability to provide maintenance must be substantiated with medical evidence and personal circumstances assessed reasonably.

O R D E R

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Kalpetta, in M.C. No.89/2017 under Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondents 2 and 3. The respondents filed the maintenance case against the petitioner before the Family Court claiming maintenance. The Family Court granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,500/- to the first respondent and Rs.3,000/- each to respondents 2 and 3. It is challenging the said order that this revision petition has been filed.

3. I have heard Sri.Muhammed Noushiq P.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.T.R. Rajesh, the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The petitioner does not have any case that the first respondent is employed or has any source of income. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Ext.D6 disability certificate argued that the petitioner is suffering from mental disability and hence he is not in a position to do any work.

5. Ext.D6 only shows that the petitioner is suffering from bipolar affective disorder and he has a temporary disability of 40%. However, the petitioner did not choose to examine the doctor to prove that he is unable to do any work because of his mental condition. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner is unable to do any work. He has admitted that he was plying an autorickshaw. Considering the requirements of the respondents and the means of the petitioner, the monthly maintenance awarded by the Family Court as per the impugned order is absolutely reasonable. I see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.