IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 109 of 2005() --------------------------------- MC. No. 544/2004 OF FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN M.C: -------------------------------------------------------------------- KALLIYIL MAMMUTTY, S/O.MAMMUNNI, KALLIYIL HOUSE, NILAMBUR TALUK, BHOODANAM AMSOM, VELUMBIYAMPADAM, BHOODANAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER IN MC: ---------------------------------------------------- VALIYAPEEDIYAKKAL SAINABA, W/O.MAMMUTTY, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, TIRURANGADI TALUK, THENHIPPALAM AMSOM DESOM, CHENAKKAL ANGADI P.O. ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 109 of 2005 ORDER ON C. M.A. NO.11678/2005 IN RPFC.No. 109 of 2005 DISMISSED SD/- 15/3/2010 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mns M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.109 OF 2005 ====================== Dated this the 15th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C No.544/2004. A responsible good man and understanding wife, unfortunately had their matrimonial life ruptured and the wife is knocking at the doors of the Family Court for maintenance. The husband is an employee of the Calicut University as a peon and he is having 98 cent of landed property. The wife is a person who has 1/5 the right over 84 cents of land. The couple are blessed with children and I am told that they are all comfortably placed in life. Yet the couple has decided to fight. The learned counsel would contend before me that the factum of the prolonged silence coupled with the silence regarding the amount awarded would indicate that the wife is really not entitled to maintenance. It can be taken in another form that having been with him for so many years R.P.(F.C) No.109 OF 2005 2 and after begetting 4 childrens he does not want to cause embarrassment till the last unavoidable stage. It has also come up in evidence that this gentleman has married again and again and led other matrimonial life as well. The amount awarded is too meager which can be interfered by court exercising revisional jurisdiction. The entitlement is also as clear as broad day light. Therefore I do not propose to interfere with the order of the Family Court. Therefore the revision lacks merits and dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns