IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 490 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.722/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- SURESH BABU, S/O.KODIYIL NARAYANANKUTTY, PARUTHI PRADESH, MUNDAMUKA, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- RAJITHA, D/O. P.N.RAJAN, 85/B, VENKITTARAMANAN COLONY, EDAYAR PALAYAM, KUNIYAMUTHUR, COIMBATORE-8. ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.APPLN.NO.12539/2007 IN RP(FC).NO.490/2007 DISMISSED. 19.3.2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.(FC).NO.490 OF 2007 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance in M.C.No.722/2006 of the Family Court, Palakkad. The unfortunate young couple, who had a short matrimonial life together, are living separately and the wife has come to the court for maintenance. According to the wife, the husband and the members of the family has meeted out cruelty to her which resulted in her leaving from the matrimonial home. It is also contended that the husband is having an income of Rs.8,000/- and so, she is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. On the contrary, the husband would contend that the wife is living separately without a reasonable cause and as she is a resident of Coimbatore, she does not like the atmosphere of the husband's native place and she wants to live separately and that there is no cruelty meeted out to her. The evidence RP(FC).NO.490/2007 2 regarding cruelty is clear from the deposition of PW1. The husband did not enter into the box at all. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that while examining the wife, the wife has admitted before the court that she is prepared to live separately, provided, the mother-in-law takes the responsibility. In the previous sentence, it has been recorded that there was an attempt to call the girl back to the matrimonial home but the mother of the husband said that she will not be responsible for any unforeseen incidents that may take place. This shows that there had been unfortunate incidents and that is why she is very careful in her needs and deeds. Ordinarily, when a young girl gets married, her dream will be of a happy matrimonial home and she will never like to live separately from her husband which will bring disrespect to her and to the family. Under the ordinary Indian culture, until the life has become so intolerable, the wife would not like to live separately. Everybody is aware of the fact that there will be ordinary wear and tear in the matrimonial life which has to be borne by the parties in order to have a peaceful life. But when it exceeds a limit and it becomes intolerable, the RP(FC).NO.490/2007 3 wife may have to resort to other methods. The wife had also expressed her apprehension that if she joins the husband, her life will be at stake. Against this, the husband did not come to the box at all. So, I am inclined to accept the evidence of PW1 on that regard and hold that she is living separately only on account of specific reasons. The next question is regarding the quantum of maintenance. The husband is admittedly working in a Hire Purchase Company in Shornur and it is contended that he is not having a substantial income. RW1 is examined to prove Ext.D1 which the court below did not accept. The court also found that the said person though claimed to be the Manager was in fact only a clerk. It has also come out in evidence that the husband has ten years of experience as a clerk of that company, and therefore, the Family Court took the income at Rs.4,000/- to fix the maintenance. It has also come out in evidence that the increment rate is at the rate of Rs.250/- per month. I feel that the approach by the Family Court is only just and reasonable and awarding a compensation of RP(FC).NO.490/2007 4 Rs.1,500/- to the wife in the present set up cannot be said to be on the higher side at all. Therefore, from these discussions, I do not find any perversity, illegality or irregularity which requires interference at the hands of this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction, and therefore, the R.P fails, and hence it is dismissed. If any amount is deposited, the petitioner in the M.C. is at liberty to withdraw the same. M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 6th November, 2008