IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 410 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.176/2003 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN MC ------------------------------------------------- 1. AMMINI, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. K.A.PRAKASH, KOLAKKATTUSERY HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 2. BIBITHA, AGED 17 (MINOR), D/O. AMMINI, KOLAKKATTUSERY HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN MC ------------------------------------------- K.A.PRAKASH, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM, ALAPPADAN HOUSE, BEHIND SANGAMAM BAR, ANGAMALI, WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 410 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.176/03. The wife and daughter moved an application for maintenance against the husband and the Family Court rejected the prayer for maintenance to the wife and granted a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the child. It is against that rejection of the claim the wife has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. The crux of the matter depends on the question whether the wife has got sufficient means to maintain herself for the reason u/s 125 Cr.P.C. when the wife is unable to maintain herself she is entitled to maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Now it is the case of the husband that the wife was given 34 cents of land of which 17 cents of land were acquired and the wife has received a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs which is with her. It is also contended that she is having the remaining 17 cents of land R.P.(F.C.) NO. 410 OF 2007 -:2:- with a building therein and therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance. On the contra the wife would contend that though the Land Acquisition Court has awarded only in her favour the husband had taken that amount. There is nothing left with her and therefore she is liable to be maintained. The mere production of the S.B.Account by the husband would not be sufficient to discharge the burden. Since the amount has been received by her under the land acquisition proceedings it is for her to explain properly by cogent evidence how that amount has gone to the husband. It is a matter which could be proved by documentary as well as oral evidence. Therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the wife to establish her case. Therefore the order of the Court below rejecting maintenance to the wife is set aside and it is remitted back for fresh consideration and parties are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the Family Court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say parties R.P.(F.C.) NO. 410 OF 2007 -:3:- are permitted to produce sufficient documents to establish their cases. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 5.4.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-