IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 154 of 2005() --------------------------- MC.141/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ M.V.ASHRAF, S/O.KAMMU, RESIDING AT VALAKANDIYIL HOUSE, VELLERI.P.O., CHEMBRAKKATTOOR, ARREEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.NAJMATH, D/O. ALAVI, KARIMBADAM VAYAL, KUNDAYITHODU, P.O.KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE, NALLALAM PSL. ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 154 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.141/04. The unfortunate couple who got married on very great principles now stand before the Court of law one claiming maintenance and the other defending the same. They would have been a celebrated couple if they had lived together because they want the society to do away with the system of dowry and giving gold ornaments but less said about better and now both are unhappy and I may say most unfortunate. The reason for living separately is stated by the wife as cruelty on the ground of demand of 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and also coming back by the husband's sister from her husband's house. The misunderstanding assumes larger importance for the reason that it is the relative of the wife who had married the sister of the husband. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 154 OF 2005 -:2:- 2. So far as the gold ornaments are concerned the Court below on an enquiry revealed that since it was a marriage on principles the story of parting with gold ornaments was not accepted but the trial court went in favour of the wife and held that it is quite possible that the misunderstanding widened when the relative of the wife sent back the sister of the husband to the parental home. According to her the ill-feeling started on that date and the husband even told her that he had married her because of the reciprocal arrangement. Whatever it may be, the reasons spoken to by the wife appears to be probable and therefore I find there are grounds to live separately. 3. The next is regarding the quantum. The wife would submit that the husband is the owner of a vegetable shop whereas the husband would state that he is only an employee in the vegetable shop. According to the wife he earns an income of Rs.4,000/- per month but according to him he gets a daily wage of Rs.50/-. There is no evidence to prove that he is running a vegetable shop or his earnings is restricted to R.P.(F.C.) NO. 154 OF 2005 -:3:- Rs.50/-. It is not possible to believe that in the present set up a man will work for a meager wage of Rs.50/-. The Court cannot forget the surroundings and social situation that prevail in the society. Therefore the only methodology to be adopted is to strike a balance between the two and award a reasonable maintenance considering the nature of employment and also the peculiar situation of the wife. I feel it will be just if a maintenance of Rs.1,200/- is ordered instead of Rs.1,500/-. Therefore the revision is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance of the Family Court by directing the husband to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month from the date of petition. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-