IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 197 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.298/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOIDEEN KUTTY, PALLIYALTHODI HOUSE, VALAMBUR P.O. BY ADV. MR.C.M.KAMMAPPU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. MUNEERA, 22 YEARS, D/O.KUNHAYAMMU, PUNNAKKATTUKUZHI HOUSE, P.O.CHERAKKAPARAMBA. 2. MUHAMMED FAZIL, 2 YEARS, S/O.MUNEERA, REP. BY MOTHER. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON R3 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.21222/2005 IN RP(FC) NO.197/2005 DISMISSED 17/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.197 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.298/2004. The wife and two year old child moved an application for maintenance and the family court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/= to the wife and Rs.400/= to the child per month respectively payable from the date of petition. It is against that decision, the revision is preferred by the husband. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents. The learned counsel would contend before me that the wife has not succeeded in proving the reasons to live separately and therefore she is dis- entitled to get maintenance. The unfortunate couple who got married in the year 1998 is now fighting without any reunion. The wife would contend that the husband and members of his family had deprived of her ornaments and also cash and there has been cruelty meted out to her demanding more and more amount. It is also her case that there was an occasion when she was pregnant of 4 months. : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.197 OF 2005 The husband took her to a nursing home and the moment the mother came, he left the place and never cared to look after her. Thereafter on mediation she went back, came for delivery and thereafter again she was taken to the matrimonial home and the incidents continued, according to her. This lady had given birth to two children of this man of which one child is with the father and the second petitioner is with the wife. Unless there are compelling reasons, under ordinary circumstances the wife who does not have much resources will not stay away from her husband. The allegation of the husband is that the wife is in the habit of frequently visiting her house and on one such occasion, she has not come back. As analysed by the family Court, the evidence of the wife appears to be more probable and therefore I do not find any reason to disturb that finding. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned, admittedly the revision petitioner is working in a rubber factory. The wife would contend that the husband is having an income of Rs.6,000/= per month whereas the husband would contend that his income is only Rs.3,000/=. It is also his case that he : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.197 OF 2005 has to travel from Nilambur to Perinthalmanna by incurring an expenditure of Rs.700/= per month. There is some force in the contention of the wife that his income may not be of Rs.3,000/= as spoken to by him and he could have easily produced some documents or evidence to establish the same. 4. Considering the present wage set up in Kerala, Rs.3,000/= may not be the income of the husband at all and therefore awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/= to the wife and Rs.400/= to the child per month respectively cannot be said to be on the higher side by any stretch of imagination. Therefore I decline to interfere with the order under challenge. The revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.197 OF 2005