IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 390 of 2007() MC.346/2005 DATED 24.5.2007 OF FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD ------------------------------ REVISION PETITONERS/PETITIONERS 1. NASEEM AKHTARI,AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. K.S.MOHAMMED SAHEB, W/O. SAJEED HUSSAIN, RESIDING AT MOHAMMADIYA COTTAGE, MAJAL PATHWADI, MULINJE VILLAGE, UPPALA, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. K.SALIH HUSSAIN, AGED 7 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NASEEM AKHTARI, D/O. K.S.MOHAMMED SAHEB, RESIDING AT MOHAMMADIYA COTTAGE, MAJAL PATHWADI, MULINJE VILLAGE, UPPALA, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. 3. K.SABIL HUSSAIN,AGED 2 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER NASEEM AKHTARI, D/O. K.S.MOHAMMED SAHEB RESIDING AT MOHAMMADIYA COTTAGE, MAJAL PATHWADI, MULINJE VILLAGE, UPPALA, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER 1. SAJEED HUSSAIN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.M.GOUSE, RESIDING AT ASHIYANNA MANZIL, GANJIMUTT, P.O. GANJIMUTT, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K., KARNATAKA STATE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH CORUT OF KERALA ADV. MR. K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. MR. BENNY VARGHESE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No. 390 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 5th day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragode in M.C 346 /2005. The wife and two children moved an application for maintenance and the Family Court rejected the maintenance of the wife and granted at the rate of Rs.2000/- and Rs.500/- respectively to the children. It is against the rejection of the maintenance of the wife, the revision is preferred. The Family Court in its usual style had analysed the evidence in a technical manner and had discarded the case of the wife. Here is a case when the husband had married again, and the demand of the 1st wife to provide amount plus a separate residence cannot be classified as unreasonable. It will be extremely difficult for two wifes to live in the same house. That itself is a sufficient indication to show that the matrimonial atmosphere was not good and it had resulted in the R.P.(F.C) No. 390 OF 2007 2 separate living. However a lady without any resource under ordinary circumstance would never run away from the husband and therefore, I find the Family Court has not approached the matter in the Court perspective. It is also seen that criminal cases are pending against the husband. Therefore, I am persuaded to accept the case of the wife and set aside the order of the Family Court rejecting her maintenance. 2. Now comes the quantum. The husband was employed in Muscat and he had come back and even Family Court has observed that he must have a lucrative job and there must be some savings even now. His present employment namely under a Chartered Accountant has been attempted to be proved by RW2. He had deposed before court that respondent is only paid salary of Rs.2,500/-. It has to be remembered that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the Court to find out the necessity of the spouse and children and also capacity of husband and then to strike a balance so as to award a reasonable R.P.(F.C) No. 390 OF 2007 3 maintenance. When such theory is applied, I feel the wife has to be satisfied that a maintenance amount of Rs.500/- for the reason already the father is having the liability of making payment of Rs.1,500/- to the children. 3. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of by setting aside the order of Family Court rejecting maintenance of wife and she is awarded maintenance Rs.500/- payable from the date of petition and the respondent is also liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively to the children. Disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns