IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 68 of 2005() --------------------- MC.46/2004 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------------ SIVARAMA PILLAI, AGED 40, S/O. SANKARAPILLAI, MODIYIL VEEDU, ANJILITHANAM P.O., KEEZHAIPUR. BY ADV. MR. R.PADMARAJ MR. BIJU HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS:- PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------ 1. USHA KUMARI, AGED 35, W/O. SIVARAMA PILLAI, ANCHIRUKKATTU, CHENKALLIL VEEDU, CHENGAROOR P.O., MALLAPALLY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. 2. SUNIMOL, AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR) D/O. USHAKUMARI @ SIVARAMA PILLAI, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER USHAKUMARI ANCHIRUKKATTU CHENKALLIL VEEDU, CHENGAROOR P.O., MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. 3. SINIMOL, AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR) D/O. USHAKUMARI & SIVARAMAPILLAI, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER USHAKUMARI, ANCHIRUKKATTU CHENKALLIL VEEDU, CHENGAROOR P.O., MALLAPALLY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(F.C) NO.68/2005 : 2 : ORDER ON CRL. M.A. NO. 7484/2005 IN R.P.(F.C) NO.68/2005 DISMISSED 24.02.2010 sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.68 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.No.46/2004. The wife and minor children of the revision petitioner moved an application for maintenance and the court below granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/= each to petitioners 1 and 3 therein and Rs.800/= to the second petitioner payable from the date of petition. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard. A perusal of the records would reveal that the couple got married on 15.9.1987 and two children had been born in the wedlock of which one is mentally retarded. It is submitted that the mentally retarded child has to be abandoned, according to the husband, and that created a rift between the husband and wife resulting in separate living. The husband had relied on a document -Ext.B1. The wife on the other hand would submit that her signature had been obtained in a paper and it is not correct. No attempt has been made to examine any independent witness : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.68 OF 2005 to prove Ext.B1. Further it has to be stated that the right to maintenance is a statutory right and it cannot be taken away by virtue of a recital in a document. Further the document itself would reveal that the husband is given the right to live in the house therein and she will not enter the property. Though it is suggested that there are 200 rubber trees in the property, nothing has come out in evidence to support the same. The mentally retarded child has to be looked after. PW1, the wife, had spoken about the difficulties and PW2 the sister of PW1 had also narrated the miserable life of the first petitioner. It can be seen from the evidence of CPW1 that he is again married and children are born therein and he is able to maintain them. 3. So the right to live separately is proved and the quantum awarded also is only meager i.e., Rs.500/= to petitioners 1 and 3 and Rs.800/= to the second petitioner. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the family court. Therefore the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.68 OF 2005 cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.68 OF 2005