IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 80 of 2009() --------------------- MC.247/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL MAJEED P.K., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, BUSINESS, KARUVALATHIL, ILAHIYA MANZIL, CHANGAROTH AMSOM, KANNATTY DESOM, KADIYANGAD POST, PERAMBRA VIA, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------ KOYITTIKANDIYIL AISYA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.AHAMMED HAJI, KOTTAKANDIYIL HOUSE, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM, DESOM, POST KALLIKKANDY, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 80 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.247/04. A 21 year old wife of a 33 year old husband had moved the case claiming maintenance. They got married on 4.12.03 and it is averred that 52 sovereigns of gold and Rs.1,50,000/- was paid at the time of the marriage. The allegation is that the husband and the members of his family were very cruel and they were physically and mentally ill-treating her and she was ultimately forced to leave the company of the husband on account of these reasons and the husband has failed to maintain her without any reasonable cause and hence the petition. 2. Husband on the other hand would contend that there is no ground for the wife to live separately. She is having substantial income from the property and he is not having any income and therefore he cannot be directed to maintain the wife. R.P(F.C.) NO. 80 OF 2009 -:2:- 3. The Family Court after considering the materials and evaluating the evidence came to a conclusion that the wife was living separately on account of reasonable cause and it is not proved that she has got separate income, at the same time did not accept the case of the wife that the husband was having a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. The Family Court took into consideration the age of the person, the physical condition of the person and the statutory obligation of the person and directed him to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.800. I had meticulously perused the order of the Family Court which stands to reason and there is no illegality or perversity in approaching the case or in appreciating the evidence and therefore the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-