IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 286 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.841/2008 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- IBRAHIMKUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMAD HAJI,PUZHAKKAL VEEDU, ADALEDU, PUZHAMUDI P.O.KALPATTA VIA, WYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- FATHIMA, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. IMBICHIMUHAMMED MUSLYAR, PENGATTU PURAYIL, KUZHIMANNA P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.286 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of the order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.841 of 2008 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife, second in order at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. As per the evidence petitioners' first wife committed suicide for which he was prosecuted and awarded rigorous imprisonment for eleven years. That matter is pending in appeal in this court. Respondent is his second wife. She alleged that petitioner subjected her to cruelty and harassment and that she was constrained to withdraw from her company. Alleging neglect and refusal to maintain, she claimed maintenance from petitioner. Petitioner denied the allegations of cruelty and claimed that he pronounced Talaq on her and the matter was intimated to the Mahal committee of respondent by a registered letter. Ext.D1 is the copy of Talaq notice. Ext.D4 is the copy of notice served on respondent demanding restitution of conjugal rights. Court below found on evidence that there was sufficient reason for respondent to live separately and claim maintenance. That finding is based on evidence, is not shown to be vitiated on account of any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and hence does not call for R.P.F.C.No.286 of 2009 2 interference. It has also come in evidence that petitioner has married another lady on 18-01-2009. That also justified respondent living separately and claiming maintenance. 2. so far as the plea of pronouncing of Talaq is concerned, court below has referred to the relevant circumstances and evidence and held that there was no attempt for mediation and reunion by petitioner before pronouncing of Talaq. It was also found that the necessary formalities required for a valid pronouncement of Talaq as held by Supreme Court in the decision in Shamin Ara Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2002 (2) KLT 537) have not been complied. It is in the circumstance that court below found against the plea of pronouncing of Talaq which I find no reason to disagree with. On facts, circumstances and evidence respondent is entitled to have separate residence and maintenance. 3. So far as amount awarded is concerned, it is only Rs.1500/- per month which I am not inclined to think a luxury for a lady aged 28 years having regard to her requirements and the cost of living. It has also come in evidence that petitioner is reasonably affluent. His own evidence shows that he was going to the court below to attend the case from Kalpetta by taking a taxi car on rent and driving the vehicle for himself. I am not inclined to think in such a situation and even when this case was pending he could afford to marry another lady and R.P.F.C.No.286 of 2009 3 set up another family, Rs.1500/- is beyond his reach requiring interference. No interference is called for, at the instance of the petitioner. There is no merit in this revision. It is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/