IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 RPFC.No. 195 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.576/2004 OF FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- MUHAMMED ALI, KALAPPATTIL HOUSE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, PARAKKANNI, ALIPPARAMBU, THOOTHA VIA. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------- 1. KHADEEJA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. VENGADAN MOIDEEN, VENGADAN HOUSE, ANAMANGADU P.O. 2. SADIKH, AGED 12 1/2 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED ALI, MINOR. 3. SHAMSAD, AGED 9 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED ALI, MINOR. 4. HAKKIM, AGED 7 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED ALI, MINOR. 5. JASNA, AGED 5 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMED ALI, MINOR. (MINOR PETITIONERS ARE REPTD. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 195 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.576/04. The petitioners therein are the wife and four children of the respondent and the Court below directed to pay a maintenance of Rs.500/- to the wife, Rs.400/- each to the first two children and at Rs.350/- each to the 3rd and 4th children from the date of petition. It is against that decision the husband has moved this revision. The contentions are two folded on the ground that the wife is not entitled to maintenance for the reason that she is a divorced wife and secondly the quantum is on the higher side. So far as the divorce is concerned the Court below has considered it in paragraph 10 of its judgment. The Court below held that the evidence available before it is not sufficient to prove dissolution of marriage. D2 is only postal receipt dated 10.1.2005 and D1 a letter purported to be written to the Mosque Committee. The Court below held that R.P(F.C.) NO. 195 OF 2005 -:2:- though the letter contains the names of two witnesses nobody has been examined to prove the same. It is a settled principle of law now that there must be a counselling talk before the pronouncement of 'Talaq'. It is admittedly not done in this case. Similarly the mere fact of stating that a divorce has been effected in the written statement is not sufficient in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the decision reported in Shamin Ara v. State of U.P.(2002 (3) KLT 537. Therefore I cannot find fault with the Court below for holding that there is no proof to prove the factum of divorce. 2. So far as the quantum is concerned the Court has only ordered a very reasonable amount of Rs.500/- to the wife, Rs.400/- each to the two children and Rs.350/- each to the other two children. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be said to be on the higher side. The children are aged 11½ years, eight years, six years and four years in 2004 and they need nourishment as well as some backing for their education. So I cannot hold that the quantum awarded R.P(F.C.) NO. 195 OF 2005 -:3:- is also high. Therefore I do not find any merit in this revision petition. 3. Lastly the learned counsel would contend before me that the proceedings are initiated to sell the property of the revision petitioner and simultaneously execution is also launched for the purpose by arresting the revision petitioner for realisation of the amount. One need not be proceeded in two directions and therefore the very object is to see that the amount is realised for the purpose of maintenance. Therefore though it may relate two different periods I direct the Court below to keep in abeyance the execution of the arrest warrant and proceed with the matter with respect to the sale of the property and if it is found that the sale amount is inadequate then resort to the process of law for realisation of the amount. With this observation this R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-