IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 359 of 2009() --------------------------------- MC.77/2008 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ K. MURUKESAN, S/O.KANTHASWAMY, AGED 38 YEARS, CHINNACOUNDER THOTTAM, AKKARAPATTY, RASIPURAM, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- R. BHAGAVATHY, D/O.RAMANKUTTY, AGED 28 YEARS, MADAPPALLATH VEEDU, NADUVAKKAD, KANNADI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. MR.C.RAGHAVAN . THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 359 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.MA.NO.9290/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.359/2009 DISMISSED 08/02/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.359 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.77/2008. Revision petitioner is the husband, who is aggrieved by the decision of the family court in ordering maintenance. It is the case of the wife that the husband had not cared to look after her and therefore she is entitled to live separately. 2. The learned counsel for the husband would contend before me that there is a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and therefore it will disentitle the wife to live separately. Admittedly the said decree is an ex parte decree. 3. A learned Judge of this Court in the decision reported in Haizaz Pashaw v. Gulsar Banu (2002 (2) KLT 773) held that an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by the petitioner against the wife is not an absolute bar to the consideration of the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.359 OF 2009 4. The wife as PW1 deposed that while she was living in the matrimonial home, the servants in the house were sent away and she was asked to do the work in the house as well as in the garden. She was also asked to milk the 4 cows in the house and there was always discord between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. It is also contended that the gold ornaments were deprived of and she was sent back home. Thereafter there was some reconciliation and again it had failed resulting in separate living. So, the evidence of her would reveal that she has got special reasons for living separately. 5. So far as the quantum is concerned, I had perused the evidence of the husband, who has admitted that he has got at least 7 acres of land and there are 35 coconut trees in the property. There is also vegetable cultivation besides double crop land which can be cultivated. So he is not an ordinary man without any landed property and therefore the direction of the family court to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/= per men sum cannot be said to be on the : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.359 OF 2009 higher side considering the capability of the husband and requirement of the wife. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.359 OF 2009