IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947 RPFC NO. 523 OF 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.08.2017 IN MC NO.175 OF

2016 OF FAMILY COURT, VATAKARA ---------------

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :-

RANJITH, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.R ADHAKRISHNAN, GOVINDAM, PARAMBALATH HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE DIST BY ADVS.

SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SRI.R.AJAI SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDEN T S/PETITIONERS : -

1 REEJA THEVAR KANDIYIL HOUSE, KEEZHAL POST, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 105

2 RANJIMA D/O. RANJITH, THEVAR KANDIYIL HOUSE, KEEZHAL-POST, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 105

3 RIJIN, AGED 13 YEARS,(MINOR)

S/O. RANJITH KEEZHAL-POST, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE PIN 673 105 R3 MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER, THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN.

BY ADV SMT.G.CHITRA THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------

R.P (F.C) No.523 of 2017 --------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2025

O R D E R

This revision is filed against the order dated 04.08.2017 in M.C.175/2016 of the Family Court, Vatakara. As per the impugned order, the Family Court granted maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.4,500/- each. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that altogether Rs.13,500/- was awarded by the Family Court. It is submitted that the petitioner met with an accident and he has got some disability in doing work. The learned counsel takes me through the concluding paragraph of the impugned order in which it is stated by the Family Court that there is not much evidence relating to the income of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive.

4. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The 2^nd respondent was aged 17 years at the time of filing the claim petition. Probably she might have attained majority now. If that is the case, and if she has no disability to earn, she is not entitled to maintenance. Similarly, the 3^rd respondent also attained majority because when the claim petition was filed in the year 2016, he was aged 11 years. If he is attained majority and if he has no physical disability, he is also not entitled to maintenance after he attained majority.

5. As far as the maintenance to the 1^st respondent is concerned, the Family Court granted only Rs.4,500/-. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is not having any capacity to pay the amount was considered by the Family Court in the concluding paragraph of the impugned order. It will be better to extract the said paragraph, which reads thus :-

“Regarding quantum of maintenance there is not much of evidences relating to income of the respondent. Though the respondent contends that he met with an accident and he is unable to do any work, his remaining evidences reads that he is getting income from family agricultural property and that he is also earning from stone cutting by employing labourers. In the absence of any evidence to prove physical infinity or percentage of disability, the respondent is found an able bodied person capable of earning minimum of Rs.1,000/- per day from all the sources. His monthly income with 25 days of work in a month comes to Rs.25,000/-. His mother is having her profession, as well as landed property. As such there are no dependants on him. Considering the age of petitioners, their requirements in life cost of living on the present day, academic expenses of petitioner 2 and 3 each of petitioners require an amount of Rs.4,500/- for each as maintenance per month and the respondent is found capable of paying the same. Point found accordingly.”

In the light of the abo