IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 64 of 2007() ------------------------------- MC.208/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S)/ COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- R. SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.RAJAPPAN NAIR, CHERUVALLITHARA VEEDU, VENNIKKULAM P.O., VENNIKKULAM MURI, PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.T.K.KOSHY MR.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- M.S. SREELAKSHMI, D/O. P.R. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, MANNATHU VEEDU, MALLAPPALLY WEST P.O., MALLAPPALLY MURI, MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV.MR.G.UNNIKRISHNON THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== RP(FC) No.64 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of January 2010 OEDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.No.208 of 2005. The couple got married on 18.12.1999 and some way or the other pulled down till 2005. Thereafter it is the case of the wife that the husband had abandoned her and she is not having any source of income. She had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The court after consideration of the entire materials found that the wife is entitled to a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- from the date of petition and it is against that decision, the revision is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue before me that there are no valid grounds for the wife to live separately and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance and further that she is a qualified lady with lot of property and therefore not entitled to any amount as maintenance. 3. As far as the first argument is concerned, it has come out in RP(FC) 64/2007 -:2:- evidence that the girl was sent away from her matrimonial home on 1.1.2005 along with her parents. It is also seen that subsequent to a mediation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the husband and wife lived together in a lodge upto 20.1.2005 and thereafter the husband left the country on 23.1.2005 and thereafter he has not bothered to care for the wife. The husband, on the other hand, would contend that she had gone to her home without any valid reasons. It is also his contention that lot of amount has been spent on her for the infertility and he had also taken a loan of Rs.4 lakhs and is paying regular amount of Rs.10,000/- to the bank. Since the departure from the matrimonial home is admitted by the husband on account of his summoning of the parents of the girl. It has to be stated that she has not gone voluntarily away from the matrimonial home. There was an attempt for reconciliation which in effect did give some benefit till 20.1.2005 and thereafter it did not continue. Therefore one cannot attribute that the wife had recalcitrant attitude and had stayed away from the husband. 4. Now the next question is regarding quantum. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the lady has remarried on 11.10.2009 and she is leading a matrimonial life. The court below has awarded a maintenance of Rs.2,000/-. The wife would contend that the RP(FC) 64/2007 -:3:- husband is having an income of Rs.50,000/- whereas the husband would contend that he is only having an income of Rs.18,000/-. There is no clear cut evidence to fix the income of the person. It is only oath against oath. But the factum that the husband had done some treatment to the wife and he had some liability with the bank also cannot be forgotten. He has also to look after his parents. Now the wife is well settled. 5. So taking into consideration all these circumstances together I feel maintenance need be ordered at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of petition till 11.10.2009, the date on which the wife got remarried. The order is modified accordingly. Any amount already deposited or paid shall be given credit to and the balance alone need be paid by the husband. RP(FC) is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-