IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 141 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.144/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARGOD .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, PERIYADUKKAM HOUSE, BELLA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------- 1. SREELEKHA K.K., AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, R/AT CHAMAKUZHY HOUSE, KALICHANDUKKAM, P.O.NILESWARAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. AMBIKA, AGED 3 YEARS, (PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY 1ST PETITIONER, MONTHER AS GUARDIAN). ADV. SRI.S.JIJI FOR R1-2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 141 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.144/08. There was an application for past maintenance as well as for future maintenance. The claim for past maintenance was disallowed and future maintenance was ordered at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.500/- to the child. It is against the same the husband has approached this Court for revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the Family Court was not justified in granting maintenance to the wife. A reading of the order makes it really confusing but it is very clear that the husband and wife had never lived together for the last so many years. The wife would contend that there was habitual ill-treatment of her and she had to resort to lead a separate living in the matrimonial home itself whereas the husband would contend that her only R.P.(F.C.) NO. 141 OF 2009 -:2:- tendency was for a separate residence, to go and live away from the mother-in-law. 3. The Family Court had discussed about the social welfare attitude one should have and clearly held that it is desirable to grant maintenance to the wife and child. From the conduct of the wife it is clear that she does not want to stay in her father's house and therefore prepared to suffer and live though separately with the husband. What is really in between them is only known to them and therefore I feel well- wishers of them can make a reunion but that shall not stand in the way of the wife and child being maintained. Therefore I confirm the order of the Family Court and dismiss the revision petition. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-