IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 441 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.734/2008 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- SHAMSUDDEEN KAZHUNGUM THOTTATHIL, S/O.MAMMUDU, POTTAMMAL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.N.N.PRASEEDA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. HAFSATH PUTHOORIL, D/O.MARAKKAR HAJI, PALANTHODU HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KANNAMANGALAM WEST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RABIYATH SAFWANA (MINOR), D/O SHAMSUDEEN, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. 3. MUHSINA (MINOR), D/O.SHAMSUDEEN, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.P.M.RAFIQ FOR R1 TO R3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.12334 OF 2009 IN RPFC NO.441 OF 2009I DISMISSED 22.03.2010 SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. cl M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.441 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.734/2008. The wife and two children moved an application for maintenance and the family court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/=, Rs.1,200/= and Rs.750/= per month respectively. It is against that decision, the husband has come up before this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. There is no dispute regarding the marriage or paternity of the children. Though a faint attempt was made to contend for the position that Talaq has been pronounced, it has not been established. Further as per the latest position, even a Muslim divorced wife is entitled for maintenance until she gets remarried. 3. Then the next question is regarding her entitlement for maintenance. Under Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C, if a wife is living in adultery or without any reasonable cause living : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.441 OF 2009 separately or living by mutual consent, she is not entitled to maintenance. Here the husband has a main allegation that the wife is living in adultery with one Iqbal. The evidence of the husband is only hear say which does not have any valid effect. The trial court has also analysed the evidence of PW2 and at no point of time the husband had a case that the witness had seen his wife living in adultery with Iqbal. So the family court rightly rejected the evidence of PW2 also. When the husband attributes act of adultery on the wife, there cannot be a better cruelty than that and therefore the wife is entitled to live separately. 4. Now turning to the quantum. It has come out in evidence that the husband is working abroad for last 13 years.. There is nothing to show regarding his exact income. But it appears that both the husband and wife belong to a reasonable middle class family. The children are aged 9 years and 1 1/2 years at the time of filing of the petition. So they are entitled to a decent living. I feel that a slight leniency can be shown so far as the quantum to the wife is concerned by reducing the maintenance from Rs.3,000/= to : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.441 OF 2009 Rs.2,500/= per month. 5. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of by refixing the order of maintenance granted to the wife from 3,000/= to Rs.2,500/= per month and by retaining the maintenance amount granted to the children by the family court from the date of petition. The wife is authorised to receive the amount on behalf of the minors. If any amount is paid or deposited, that shall be given credit to. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.441 OF 2009