IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 RPFC.No. 178 of 2004(E) ---------------------- MC.568/2003 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- C.PADMANABHAN, S/O.LATE CHALIL NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS, CHALIL HOUSE, KUNHIMANGALAM, KARAT, P.O.EZHILODE, PAYANGADI. BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER / STATE: ------------------------------------------ 1. P.K.SUMATHI, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.CHANDUKUTTY NAIR, CHANDANA PARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.ERUVATTY, PINARAYI, THALASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH FOR R1 SRI.K.BABU FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 178 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.568/03. The Court below directed the husband to pay a maintenance of Rs.500/- to the wife. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. The two contentions raised are that (1) the wife is living separately without any reasonable cause and (2) that the husband is not having any income and therefore he is not bound to maintain the wife. So far as the first question is concerned the husband had qualified his wife as a mentally ill person whereas the wife in turn had given a good conduct certificate for the husband. Examination and the answers given by the wife would show that there is no such serious deformity for her. The husband does not want to take the wife back to his house. The wife would submit even though she continues to live in the house of her mother, husband can visit her. But the husband does not want any R.P(F.C.) NO. 178 OF 2004 -:2:- relationship with the wife. So the attitude of the husband is clear and therefore it has to be held that there is reasonable ground for separate living. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned the Court below has only awarded Rs.500/-. Husband is a 45 year old man. He would complain that he is having backache but it is not supported by any evidence. Even otherwise he has to work for his livelihood and therefore it is the paramount duty to maintain his wife especially in the light of the admission by him that she is not employed and she is not doing beedi rolling work after the marriage. The amount awarded is just and reasonable and therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Family Court. Therefore this R.P.(FC) lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-