IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 1 of 2009() ------------------------------ MC.268/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- REMYA P., AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.RAMAKRISHNAN REMYA NIVAS, MONACHA, P.O. UPPILIKAI, PUDUKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DT. (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION) BY ADV. MR.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ SUNILKUMAR. C., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MARANKAVIL KANNAN, WORKING AS MARBLE MESTRY, CHOORIKANDAN HOUSE, KUNIYAN, KARIVELLUR (PO) KANNUR (DT), (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION). BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 1 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.MA.NO.54/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.1/2009 CLOSED 08/02/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.1 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.268/2007. The wife moved an application for maintenance and the family court dismissed the same on the ground that there are no grounds to live separately. Therefore she has come up in revision before this Court. 2. The unfortunate couple got married on 29.4.2007 and their matrimonial relationship subsisted only for a period of 6 ½ months. It is the case of the wife that the husband is a habitual drunkard and he used to exert violence even in the privacy of the bedroom. It is also submitted that sister of the husband also creates problems. According to her, in the month of November there was an altercation and she was taken to her house by him in a motor cycle and he attempted to push her from the motor cycle to kill her. It has also come out in evidence that as per the requisition of the doctor, criminal proceedings were initiated and he had undergone imprisonment for a week. These are the : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.1 OF 2009 attributions regarding cruelty. The husband on the other hand would contend that he is innocent. The wife has got a complaint that he is a drunkard but he would say that at least on occasions he drinks. The wife has got a case that he is mad for lottery tickets whereas the husband admits that he is the habit of taking lottery tickets. He has also admitted that there is allegation of cruelty against him filed by the wife. Therefore when the entire thing is read together; the factum of drunkenness, factum of taking lottery tickets etc only adds to the evidence that is tendered by PW1 regarding cruelty. Why should a young girl who got married wanted to be away from her husband without any reason or provocation is a matter that has to be analysed. But when the allegation made by the wife is read together with the partial admission of the husband from the box, it appears that the case projected by the wife appears to be more probable and acceptable. It has to be stated that the family court has been technical in analysing the matter which shall not be the approach in matrimonial disputes. Therefore I find that there are valid reasons for the wife to live separately. : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.1 OF 2009 3. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned the wife claims Rs.3,000/= as maintenance alleging that the husband is having a monthly income of Rs.15,000/=. The wife would say that he is a contractor in marbles whereas the husband would say that he is only a workman under a contractor. According to him, his daily income is Rs.125/=. In the State of Kerala considering the present wage set up, I think the amount spoken to by the husband is meager and a minimum of Rs.200/- can easily be taken as daily wage. Even if one works for 20-22 days, I think there is nothing wrong in awarding maintenance amount of Rs.1,250/= to the wife. Therefore I fix the quantum of maintenance at Rs.1,250/=. In the result the revision is allowed and the wife is granted an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,250/= per month from the date of petition. If there is any change of circumstance, it will enable the wife to move for a higher rate under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.1 OF 2009 : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.1 OF 2009