IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 158 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.121/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH @ OUSEPHACHAN, AGED 42, S/O.MATHAI, VATTATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, MANNACKANDU KARA, KURIYILANGADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.RAJEEV V.KURUP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. ROSAMMA, W/O.JOSEPH, VELLIYAMTHADATHIL (VAYALUMKAL) MALLIIKASSERY PO, THIDANADU KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.17546/2005 IN RP(FC) NO.158/2005 DISMISSED 22/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 158 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kottayam in M.C.121/03. The couple got married in 1984 and now they are living separately. The Court below found that there is valid reason for the wife to live separately and has granted a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the documents and other records. The persistent case of the wife is that she has been treated with cruelty and that is the reason why she is living separately. In support of the same she had deposed before Court on account of her peculiar situation of not having any fund she is prepared to live with the husband even then the husband is not prepared and willing to take back the wife. So it has to be held that the wife is entitled to get maintenance. So far as the income is concerned it has come out in evidence that the husband is R.P.(F.C.) NO. 158 OF 2005 -:2:- having two acres of land. He would say that his income is Rs.4,000/- but he would submit in evidence that the entire two acres is not with rubber which means that there is rubber in the property and the income from rubber is a reasonable on all occasions. He would further contend that he is looking after his children who are studying in 11th and 12th standard besides looking after his mother. The husband is duty bound to look after his children and mother but equally also is the wife. The Court below has ordered a very nominal amount of Rs.1,000/- as maintenance. It appears to be reasonable and therefore it does not call for any interference. Therefore the revision is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-