IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 136 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.260/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ K.SAVITHRI, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.UMMANNA POOJARY, RESIDING AT KEDUPPADUPPU, MIYYAPPADAVU, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SATHEESHA, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT KORAKKODU, KASARGOD P.O., KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 136 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.260/05. The wife moved an application for maintenance and the court below refused maintenance on the ground that she is living separately without reason. It is against that the wife has come up in revision. 2. I had gone through the pleadings, the evidence and also heard the learned counsel for the both the sides. The Family Court had been highly technical in its approach because the case of the petitioner/wife appears to be that the date is 15.6.2004 whereas in evidence she has stated it as 16.5.2004. It is taken note of as a serious contradiction and the court has acted upon it. 3. The young couple were living in the matrimonial home with aged parents. The house is only a thatched one. The wife would contend that there was a demand for dowry R.P.(F.C.) NO. 136 OF 2006 -:2:- from the part of the husband and his mother which her family could not meet. It is her case that she was subjected to cruelty. There was no complaint for her to start with but according to her as the harm increased she had to live separately. 4. The husband would contend the wife was not interested in looking after his parents and she wanted to have a separate residence of her own for which he did not agree. It has to be stated at the age of 80 there is a limit for a father-in-law to create nuisance and the wife is also now not living happily in a better place but equally under the very circumstances in her parental home. Therefore when the evidence is analysed I do not find any necessity for this lady to utter falsehood and live separately from the husband. In matrimonial matters the courts have to be more realistic rather than relying upon the technical field of evidence Act for the reason that it is the life of two persons that is under peril R.P.(F.C.) NO. 136 OF 2006 -:3:- which not only affects them but the society as a whole. Under the Indian concept ordinarily a wife will not be interested to stay separately unless there is some harm done to her. Even though there are exceptions here and there the ordinary wear and tire of matrimonial life is normally bone by some of the ladies. But in so far as this case is concerned that is not the circumstances and the wife had left the matrimonial home only on account of her difficulty to continue her residence therein. Therefore she is entitled to claim maintenance for her living separately. 5. So far as the quantum is concerned it is argued that the husband is having two auto rickshaws and landed properties and lottery sales but the only accepted thing is the sale of lottery tickets from where the husband claims about Rs.70 to 80 as income per day. Admittedly the disabled aged parents have to be looked after by the husband and at this point of time the wife is living separately which means that he R.P.(F.C.) NO. 136 OF 2006 -:4:- has to spend more time to look after the things of the parents. So taking into consideration these factum I am inclined to fix the monthly income between Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/- and award a sum of Rs. 600/- as maintenance to the wife. The said maintenance shall be paid from the date of petition. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-