Reju John vs Dhaya Reju
2021 Latest Caselaw 14478 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
      TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
                         RPFC NO. 112 OF 2021
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 62/2015 OF FAMILY COURT,
                     MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

          REJU JOHN,
          AGED 44 YEARS,
          S/O.C.M. JOHN, AGED 44 YEARS, CHOORALIL HOUSE,
          PAMPAKUDA P.O, ANCHALPETTY KARA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE,
          MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK-686 667.

          BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM (B-185)



RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

          DHAYA REJU,
          AGED 11 YEARS,
          D/O. ANU VARGHESE, ARIKUPURATHU HOUSE, MANNARI KARA,
          MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
          MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND ANU
          VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. VARGHESE, ARIKUPURATHU
          HOUSE, MANNARI KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA
          TALUK-686 673.



THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P.(FC) No.112 of 2021

                                         2



                                  O R D E R

The father came up against the order

enhancing the maintenance at Rs.4,000/- per month

from the original amount awarded earlier at the rate

of Rs.2,000/- on the ground that he has no income or

job to maintain the child but at the same time,

submitted that he had maintained the child by giving

an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month.

2. What is now ordered by the Family Court is

beyond the reach of petitioner being a person having

no job or income it is submitted. But the child is

aged 9, and now continuing her studies in 3 rd

standard. Hence she is entitled to maintenance

sufficient to meet all her requirement including

her education for which the father, who is liable to

maintain the child, cannot wriggle out of the

liabilities merely stating that he has no job or

income. Further, the observation made by the Family

Court that there is no sufficient evidence to show R.P.(FC) No.112 of 2021

the income of the father is not sufficient to reject

the claim. Absence of reliable evidence as to the

income of father, doesn't mean that he has no income

or job.

The paternity of the child is not in dispute

and as such, I could not find any reason to

interfere with the order passed by the Family Court.

Hence the Revision Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE WW