IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 260 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.35/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KASARGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- P.K.SHAREEFA, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O.NISSAR, RESIDING AT HOSDURG, KADAPPURAM, NEAR MEENAPPESE,HOSDURG VILLAGE, P.O.KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- NISSAR,S/O.RABIYA,RESIDING NEAR POLYTECHNIC,KUSHAL NAGAR,P.O.KANHANGAD. BY ADVS. MR.V.M.KURIAN, MR.MATHEW B. KURIAN, MR.K.T.THOMAS, MR.SABU P.JOSEPH. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.260 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.35/2006. The wife moved an application for maintenance and the family court dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no ground to live separately. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. A perusal of the order would reveal that the court was not satisfied with the ill treatment though document is produced. It is seen that a case under Section 498 A IPC is pending against the husband and his family members. Crime number is also given in para 2 of the petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had produced before me for perusal a copy of the said complaint. It is seen recorded therein that there had been cruelty by the husband and members of his family and on 23.11.2005 when she did not succeed in getting money from her house, she was brutally manhandled and she had to leave the matrimonial : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.260 OF 2007 home. The family court was highly technical and it stated that there are contradictions in the evidence to the effect that as PW1 had deposed that ill treatment had began from the previous night. It is seen that she got admitted in the hospital on 23.11.2005 with the allegation of assault by the husband and others. So, the evidence of PW1 pinpoints out one thing that her life in the matrimonial house was not cordial or congenial and the atmosphere was really frightening her. Why should a young lady aged 21 years give away her husband aged 25 years without any reason. Therefore I feel that the family court's view that the wife walked out of the matrimonial home does not appear to be correct. Therefore I find that she is entitled to live separately and claim maintenance . 3. Now turning to the question of quantum of maintenance. The wife would contend that the respondent is getting Rs.1,000/= per day from his business. There is no positive material in that regard. But he is a young man aged 25 years. I feel that by any stretch of imagination, the amount of Rs.1,000/= as maintenance per month cannot be : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.260 OF 2007 said to be on the higher side. Therefore I order maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/= from the date of petition. 4. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order passed by the family court is set aside and the revision petitioner namely the wife is ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/= per month payable by the respondent-husband from the date of petition. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.260 OF 2007