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. 4 of 2007(E) --------------------- MC.345/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KASARGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ SUMAYYA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. LATE IBRAHIM, R/AT KODIYAMA, P.O. KODIYAMA, KUMBALA (VIA), KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & STATE: ---------------------------------- 1. HAMEED, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, R/AT MOOKKAMPARA HOUSE, P.O. PERDALA, BADIADKA, KASARAGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BENNY VARGHESE FOR R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/1/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- R.P (F.C)No.4 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th January, 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasargod in M.C No.345/2005. The Wife moved an application for maintenance on the ground that the husband and the members of his family had treated her with cruelty and that had necessitated in separate living. It is specifically averred that on 29.5.2005 she was beaten and she had left the matrimonial home. On the other hand, the husband would contend that he had never treated her with cruelty but the wife had left the matrimonial home on her own will and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. PW1 and RW1 were examined by the trial court and Ext.B1 wound certificate was marked. The court below declined to accept the case of the wife and dismissed the case for maintenance. 2. In this case though notice is served, husband is not represented. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. In a case of matrimonial disharmony, a R.P (F.C)No.4 of 2007 2 reasonable approach is necessary and in all cases it may not be possible to have the best evidence to decide the matter. That does not mean that the cases have to be decided without evidence. The preponderance of possibilities also have to be considered and the surrounding circumstances also have to be taken into account. The revision petitioner has married only his uncle's daughter and the mother-in-law for the girl is none other than the uncle's wife. It has to be understood that in such circumstances whether a young lady aged 22 years will abandon the husband and go away for no reason. In this case, according to the husband, the understanding was that the wife can remain in her house and he will visit her. His grievance is that after the accident with which he met the wife started disliking him. According to him, it was on account of the incapacitation to fulfill the marital obligations. Whether he was not in a position to fulfill the marital obligations or not could have been proved better by scientific evidence which might have supported the case of the husband regarding the cause alleged. Similarly the R.P (F.C)No.4 of 2007 3 wife had stated that on account of the intervention of the mediators she was to be taken once or twice to the matrimonial home and on two occasions she was virtually abandoned in another man's home and only at the third time she had been taken to the matrimonial home. So these are all clinching circumstances, if true, to decide the case. The decision rendered merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises may not be proper especially in a matrimonial dispute. Parties are also expected to furnish better evidence so that the court will be able to understand the consequences of the same. What was the real seriousness of the accidental injury is also not seen discussed or considered. The court just arrives at a conclusion that the husband had met with an accident. He had visited the wife only after two months and so the wife was dissatisfied and therefore she is at fault. I think the said fining cannot be sustained and therefore I set aside the same. I remit the case back to the Family Court for fresh consideration with a direction to the parties concerned to adduce better evidence and produce R.P (F.C)No.4 of 2007 4 documents in support of their respective contentions and then the matter will be disposed of in accordance with law. Since the husband had not entered appearance before this Court, I direct the petitioner to take out notice once again to him so that his participation can be ensured for further disposal of the matter. The revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 20.4.2010. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N KRISHNAN,JUDGE ma R.P (F.C)No.4 of 2007 5 R.P (F.C)No.4 of 2007 6