IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 214 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.443/2008 of Family Court, MALAPPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- SUKUMARAN,S/O.CHAKKAN,THENGINCHALIL, KOZHAKKOTTUR,AREACODE-PO,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND STATE ---------------------------------------------------- 1. VASANTHI,D/O.KORAN (LATE),VADUVAN KUTTIYIL HOUSE,KODIYATHUR AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR FOR R1 SMT.MAYA ANTHARJANAM FOR R1 R2 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BENNY VARGHESE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 214 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.443/08. The wife has been granted a maintenance of Rs.1,500/-. The husband has come up in revision challenging the same. 2. Heard. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that there are no specific reasons for living separately and therefore she is not entitled to separate maintenance. The Court below had referred to the materials and held that the wife had deposed about the acts of cruelty that she has to face while she was residing in the matrimonial home. The Court also opined that without any reason no wife will like to live separately and therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding. 3. Now turning to the quantum. The husband would contend that the wife is a tailor which is not proved. The Court below considered him as a labourer and came to the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 214 OF 2009 -:2:- conclusion that he will be having at least Rs.200/- per day. It cannot be said that the man will have work on all the 30 days as a coolie and whether one can afford to work on all the 30 days. It is also true that a maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- cannot be said to be on the higher side but a balance has to be struck between the necessity and the capacity and therefore taking into consideration the fact that the husband is only a coolie and at least he has to look after his mother I am inclined to show some leniency by reducing the maintenance by Rs.200/-. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by refixing the quantum of maintenance to Rs.1,300/- per month payable to the wife by the husband from the date of petition. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-