IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 205 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.91/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL AZEES,S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, KALLACHI,KORAYATTIL VEEDU, MUNDAKUTTY,BANK KUNNU, MUNDAKUTTY,PADINHARATHARA POLICE LIMIT. BY ADV. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- JASHEERA,D/O.MANNU HAJI, ALAL HOUSE,PULINHAL, VELLAMUNDA,MANANTHAVADI. BY ADV. MR.N.NAGARESH THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.5434/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.205/2007 DISMISSED 22/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 205 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kalpetta in M.C.91/06. The wife had been ordered to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- and it is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and also perused the evidence on records. It can be seen from the materials available that the unfortunate couple got married and the husband was working abroad and now he has come back to India. Rightly or wrongly cases are pending before the Magistrate Court u/s 498A IPC and the husband is also precluded from going out of India and that is the situation. The wife has spoken much about the cruelty and the husband at the stage of trial would depose that he is prepared to take back the wife. The Court below found that it is not a bona fide offer. I also feel the same when the husband entertain a feeling that the wife was responsible for loss of job in the gulf R.P.(F.C.) NO. 205 OF 2007 -:2:- country and that a case is pending against the husband for the act of cruelty u/s 498A. Therefore I find that the wife is entitled to live separately and claim maintenance. So far as the quantum is concerned the husband would pretend that he is not having any income at all and depend upon his father for this livelihood. He is a 32 year old able bodied man. He can well afford to do work. He has deposed before Court that he is not having any ailment as well. Taking into consideration those circumstances the Court has only awarded a nominal amount of Rs.1,000/- as maintenance to the wife per month which cannot be said to be excessive under any stretch of imagination. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-