IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 61 of 2007() --------------------- MC.476/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- VELAYUDHAN @ VIJAYAN, S/O.KORAPPAN, ALAKKATHODI HOUSE, PAZHAMALLUR, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, VASANTHA SUNDARAN, W/O.SUNDARAN, PAZHAMALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------- 1. KARATTUPARAMBIL MINI, D/O.KRISHNAN, OTTATHARA, CHEMMANKADAVU, KODUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. JISHNU (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT MOTHER GUARDIAN. ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/1/ 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M. APPLI. NO.1725 OF 2007 IN R.P (F.C) NO.61 OF 2007 DISMISSED. 15/1/2010. (SD/- M.N KRISHNAN, JUDGE) /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE M.N KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- R.P(F.C) No.61 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th January, 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C No.476 of 2005. The wife and child moved an application against the husband for maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- each and the Family Court has awarded at that rate. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. First petitioner in the M.C was married by the revision petitioner and a child was born in the wedlock and that child is the person who had joined the mother for getting maintenance. There was a second child also to the wife. But it is through the brother of the husband and therefore I am informed a petition is moved against him for separate maintenance. According to the wife, she was subjected to forcible intercourse by the brother and that had resulted in the delivery of the other child. The husband on the other hand would contend that the wife R.P(F.C) No.61 of 2007 2 was leading an immoral life and therefore she is not liable to get maintenance. These acts had taken place long back and the husband had not moved his little finger to get separated from the wife. Whatever it is, it is an admitted fact that the second child is not born to the first petitioner in the M.C through the revision petitioner. So the family life is totally disrupted and possibly no husband may take back such a wife whether his brother or somebody else is responsible. The wife had a sad story to state attributing it to the brother of the husband. I am also informed that case is pending against the brother for the offence of rape. So separate living is justified and one cannot definitely say who is responsible? whether it is on account of rape or with consent, at this stage. Now only the quantum remains. The husband would contend that he is only having 70 Oman Riyals of which he quires 40 Riyals for his expenditure there and he has to look after the family members with the remaining income. As he is employed for the last so many years and continues to do the same, it can be reasonably presumed that he has reasonable R.P(F.C) No.61 of 2007 3 income. Considering the special circumstances in this case, I feel that the wife can be awarded maintenance at Rs.1500/- per mensum and child Rs.2000/-. Therefore, the order is modified whereby the wife is entitled to maintenance at Rs.1500/- and child Rs.2000/- from the date of the petition. Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N KRISHNAN,JUDGE ma R.P(F.C) No.61 of 2007 4 R.P(F.C) No.61 of 2007 5