IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 261 of 2009() ------------------------------- MC.660/2008 of THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVN.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. ------------------------------- MUHAMMED RASHEED,S/O.MUHAMMED, MANJERITHODIKA HOUSE, P.O.VALLUVANGADE, REPRESENTED BY HIS P/A.HOLDER SHAMEER T.P., S/O.RAVINDREN, THAICHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYANIKKODE, PORUR P.O., VANIYAMBALAM VIA, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): /PETITIONER. -------------------------- 1. SARAFUNNEESA,D/O.MUHAMMED, MATTUMMATHODI HOUSE, P.O.MELATTUR. 2. ATHIL RASHEED, 6 YEARS, MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER FIRST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDE RON CRL.M.A. NO.6808/2009 IN PFC. NO.261/2009 DISMISSED 27/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.261 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.660/2008. The revision petitioner is the husband who had been ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/= to the wife and Rs.750/= to the child. It is challenging the same, the husband has come up in revision. 2. At the outset, let me find out whether there are valid reasons for the wife to live separately. The wife as PW1 had deposed before the court that she had been neglected to be maintained and no maintenance amount is granted. She would also submit that he was looking after her properly to start with but later turned out to be negligent and there had been ill treatment of her and a case is pending under Section 498 A of the IPC. She would also depose that the husband is having a monthly income of more than Rs.20,000/=. The husband has not mounted the box but his sister's husband as the power of attorney holder had mounted : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.261 OF 2009 the box and gave evidence that the wife is not entitled to maintenance and the husband is only having a salary of Rs.7,500/= abroad and so he is not in a position to pay maintenance. Their relationship is strained and the husband is working abroad and he comes once or twice in 2-3 years. It has also to be stated that the husband has thrown allegation of unchastity also against the wife. It also would make a wife to live separately. Further the wife is studying in 11th standard and she is having a small child. Under ordinary circumstances she would not have left the matrimonial home. Therefore I find that the wife is entitled to live separately. 3. The next question is regarding the quantum. The wife would depose that the husband is having a monthly income of Rs.20,000/= whereas the husband would contend that he is only having Rs.7,500/= per month. It is also contended that the husband has got landed properties etc. But it has to be stated that no convincing evidence is forthcoming. The only factor that is proved is that the husband is working in abroad and Ext.B3 is produced to : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.261 OF 2009 show his salary. It is true that the husband has not mounted the box and further the person who had issued it also has not mounted the box. Whatever it is, some materials are there in that regard. So, in the absence of acceptable evidence regarding the income, I feel it is safe to fix maintenance of Rs.1,750/= to the wife and Rs.750/= to the child. 4. Therefore, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order of maintenance is modified thereby fixing the maintenance to the wife at Rs.1,750/= per month and to the child at Rs.750/= per month . This will take effect from the date of petition. If there is any further development under Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, certainly it will entitle the husband to move the concerned court for variation of the order as contemplated under Section 127 of the Cr.PC. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.261 OF 2009 : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.261 OF 2009