IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 373 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.124/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------ JNANAKESARI, S/O. SUNDARAN, RESIDING AT THUMACHIRA KELAM KOLUMBIL, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND STATE OF KERALA --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REMA, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT ERATTODU, PALLAVOOR, PALLASSENA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 2. RATNA MOL, AGED 7 YEARS, STUDENT (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN REMA, MOTHER AGED 25 YEARS, IST PETITIONER. 3. THENMOZHI, AGED 5 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN REMA, MOTHER AGED 25 YEARS, IST PETITIONER. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R1 TO 3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 373 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.124/07. Parties are addressed with respect to their ranks in the maintenance petition. Petitioners are the wife and children of the respondent. The case of the petitioners is to the effect that the life in the husband's house was peaceful up to the period of 2004 and thereafter it deteriorated and the husband and his mother started ill-treating the wife and it has caused great mental agony. It is also contended that the wife has been assaulted and treated cruelly both mentally and physically. She is not having any resources and therefore has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- for the wife and Rs.500/- each for the children. 2. The respondent, on the other hand, would contend the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord without any reason. She was not willing to look after the R.P(F.C.) NO. 373 OF 2008 -:2:- mother of the respondent and the respondent is not having much income and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. In the lower Court PW1 was examined and the trial court passed on order of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- each to the children from 27.3.2007. It is against that decision the husband has come up with this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has strongly contended before me that the wife is not entitled to maintenance for the reason she has departed on her own accord without any reason and that the husband was always prepared to take back the wife and further the claim is on the higher side. 5. Let me first consider about the reason for separate living. The wife as PW1 had deposed before the Court that till 2004 they were living happily and trouble started stating that her sister had been given more gold ornaments for the marriage and the husband and the mother-in-law used to ill-treat her on the basis of this. R.P(F.C.) NO. 373 OF 2008 -:3:- Husband used to consume alcohol and thereafter assaulted her causing mental agony to her. She had been severely cross-examined but stood the test of cross-examination without any shake and the husband though had raised so many contentions did not mount the box to give any evidence at all. Therefore I find that there is some force in the evidence of PW1 regarding the case. Learned counsel for the respondent's contentions that the husband is always prepared to take wife to the matrimonial home can be seen in the backdrop of a petition filed by the husband even challenging the paternity of the 2nd child. When a husband challenges the chastity of the wife it gives an indication regarding the genuine interest which the husband had on his wife. No lady in this society would tolerate an allegation of unchastity that too from a husband when she had given birth to a child of that man. So the preparedness to take back the wife can at the best to be considered as only an excuse to evade payment of any maintenance. So I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision on that point. R.P(F.C.) NO. 373 OF 2008 -:4:- 6. Now let me consider about the quantum. The wife has deposed before Court that the husband is having a monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. She would say that there are cows in the house of the husband and further that he will get much income from his avocation and therefore he will have an income of Rs.10,000/-. No evidence is there to show the correctness or the exact source of income. It is also to be stated that the wife is doing work with Kudumbasree and she pretends as if she is not having any income from that avocation. In a place like Palakkad which is an agricultural District people belong to lower class of the society will have financial constraints. That is the reason why both husband and wife used to do work in order to maintain their family. That does not mean that the husband can earn and drink and fail to maintain the wife. It is an obligation cast on him under the concept of the Hindu Law as well as under the statutory provisions. At the most it can be considered, being an young man, he would be doing manual work and fixing his daily income at Rs.125/- for 25 days, in a month it would be Rs.3,125/-. He has to look after himself and his old mother R.P(F.C.) NO. 373 OF 2008 -:5:- and it is admitted by PW1 that the mother is with the son and she needs care. Therefore awarding of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- for the wife and Rs.500/- each to the children may not be correct because the husband does not have much income to look after them as well as his own and his mother. I think justice can be met by modifying the amount awarded as follows. 7. Wife can be granted a maintenance of Rs.750/- per month, the first child at the rate of Rs.450/- per month and the 2nd child at Rs.350/- per month and that too from the date of filing of the petition namely 27.3.2007. Thus the R.P.(FC) is partly allowed and disposed of as stated in the previous paragraphs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-