The court upheld the Family Court's maintenance order, emphasizing the necessity to allocate the petitioner's income considering his son's health.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Thalassery, in MC No. 144 of 2020, since he has been directed to pay Rs.6,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively, as maintenance to the respondents – who are his wife and minor son.

2. Sri. Muhammed Jameel P. K. – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client has a net salary of only Rs.16,474/-; and therefore, would be – if to honor the maintenance now ordered by the learned Family Court – left with Rs.5,474/- for his sustenance, which is woefully insufficient. He argued that, in such circumstances, the learned Family Court ought not to have multed him with any amount more than Rs.4,000/- each to the respondents as maintenance, which he said his client is willing to honor.

3. Even going by the submissions of Sri.Muhammad Jameel, it is clear that the only dispute raised by the petitioner is as regards an amount of Rs.3,000/-, since he admits and undertakes that he is willing to pay Rs.8,000/-

to the respondents.

4. We notice that the learned Family Court allowed the parties to trial, along with OP No. 655 of 2020, which was filed by the petitioner seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent; and that evidence has been recorded in common. Even though we have not called for the Trial Court records, the evidence and depositions relevant to this case have been handed over across the bar by the learned counsel, with the consent that they can be relied upon by us for delivering this judgment.

5. Admittedly, the only document relevant for verifying the income of the petitioner is Ext.A1 – which is a salary certificate issued by the “General Hospital” Thalassery, where he was working as Hospital Attendant Gr II. The said certificate shows his total salary to be Rs.26,100/- per month and his net salary to be Rs.16,474/-.

6. When the petitioner deposed as PW1, he admitted that his mother is a retired Government servant and working on daily wages in a court. The learned Family Court has, therefore, concluded, – justifiably in our view – that the petitioners' mother requires no assistance from him.

7. The learned court, thereupon, took note of the fact that, even if the petitioner is receiving only Rs.16,474/-, his income will have to be distributed evenly between him and the respondents, especially because his son is suffering from ulcerative colitis, which has been proved by Exts.B5 to B24. We have verified the copies of these documents; and cannot find the learned court to have erred in any manner because, the child appears to be certainly suffering.

8. Going by the impugned order, the net effect would be that the petitioner will have to pay Rs.6,000/- to his wife, Rs.5,000/- to his son and will have Rs.5,474/- for himself.

9. Interestingly, Sri. Muhammed Jameel submits that his client cannot survive on Rs.5,474/- left with him; but asserts that the maintenance of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively to the respondents is disproportionate and excessive. We cannot understand how such an argument has been impelled, driven by any stretch of imagination.

10. In the above circumstances and because we notice that Ext.A1 salary certificate is one issued in the year 2023, with sure incremental increase to the salary of the petitioner during the subsequent years, we see no reason to intervene with the order of the learned Family Court.

In the above circumstances, this Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-