IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 407 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.181/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- SUMITHRA. K., AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN, R/AT VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN, MR.M.V.BIPIN. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- CHANDRAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MEENAKSHI, R/AT NEAR PALLAM MASJID, BEKAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.B.SHAJIMON . THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.407 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.181/2006. The family court rejected the claim for maintenance by the wife. It is against that decision, the revision is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Both the counsel had taken me through the pleadings and evidence in the case. The unfortunate couple got married on 5.2.2004 and a child was born to them, but it died at the infancy in 2005. The wife would contend that the husband and members of his family namely the mother-in-law and sister- in-law were not treating her properly and they also accused that death of the child occurred on account of her negligence. It can be seen from the materials that there had been bickering between the parties and the wife had gone to her house. The husband in May, 2006 issued a legal notice asking the wife to come back and according to him, they were living together in a rented house and without : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.407 OF 2007 any reason, she had left the rented house. The wife promptly replied stating that they had never lived in a rented house and the money and gold given had been misappropriated at the instigation of the mother and sister of the husband. It is also submitted that she had to spend large amount for the treatment of the child. It is further stated that the demand for dowry could not be met on account of the poor financial circumstances. 3. The evidence available is oath against oath. In a family court matter, the court has to adopt realistic approach and cannot decide the question solely on technical consideration. A young lady who had given birth to a child and who had lost the child is now before the court. She would depose that the child was born as a sickly baby and survived only for nine months and died for which large amount had to be spent for treatment. The husband would state in his notice that they were in a rented house which the wife had denied. The wife would submit that they never reside in a rented house. Admittedly the mother and divorced sister are living with : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.407 OF 2007 the husband. It is also a common knowledge that under such circumstance there used to be lot of misunderstandings in the family. Why should a young lady, who had lost the child even be away from the husband, if there are no reasons. The husband has never attributed any bad quality or habits on the wife which indicates that she is not a lady of quarrelsome nature. But she would contend that the life in the matrimonial home was uncomfortable and there was demand for dowry. The husband has no case anywhere in the evidence that the wife is refusing to look after his mother and others. So, an over all analysis of the evidence would reveal that the evidence of the wife appears to be more probable and reliable. Therefore accepting the same , I find that the wife is entitled to live separately as there are sufficient reasons. 4. Now turning to the quantum. It is submitted by the husband that the wife is having the work of beedi rolling but it stands not proved. She admits that the husband is a labourer by profession. It is true that he has to maintain his mother and the divorced sister. Considering the present : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.407 OF 2007 wage set up in Kerala, a reasonable income of Rs.150-200 per day even for a manual labourer cannot be ruled out. So taking into consideration that aspect and also the necessity of the wife, at least a minimum amount of Rs.1,000/= has been awarded which I grant. 5. Therefore the revision petition is allowed. The order of the family court rejecting maintenance is set aside and the husband is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/= per month to the wife payable from the date of order. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.407 OF 2007