IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 153 of 2005(E) ------------------------------ MC.73/2004 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- POLA RAJESH, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. NARAYANAN, POLA HOUSE, AROLI, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.P.K.BEENA SRI.K.N.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------- 1. KOYYATTAN HYMAVATHY, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. POLA RAJESH, NEAR LAKSHMANAN PEEDIKA, PANTHOTTAM, MORAZHA (VIA), MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR DIST. 2. SHAMAL K., AGED 5 YEARS, D/O. POLA RAJESH, NEAR LAKSHMANAN PEEDIKA, PANTHOTTAM, MORAZHA (VIA), MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR DIST. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR R1 & R2 SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA FOR R1 & R2 R3 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.153 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.73/04. The wife and son moved an application for maintenance against the husband and the Family Court granted an order of maintenance @ Rs.800/- to the wife and Rs.600/- to the child from the date of order. It is against that order the husband has come up in revision. 2. perused the records. 3. A perusal of the records would reveal that the couple got married in the month of April, 1997 and a child had been born to them in the wedlock. The wife would contend that matrimonial life in the husband's house was miserable and he used to ill treat her and she has to return back to her parental house. It is also deposed by her that the husband is always having doubt about the wife and he even suspect when she used to go with her brother. On the other hand, the husband would contend the wife RPFC.153/05 2 without any reasonable cause had left the matrimonial house. There is also an offer by the husband to take back the wife. It has to be remembered, the husband issued a notice to the wife initially as R1 on 8.8.2002 directing her to join him. A perusal of that letter and the trend of that letter would attribute the motive that all is not will with the wife. He has accused the wife stating that she is returning to her house late mid night with male workers. This allegation in Ext.R1 fortifies the contention of the wife that the husband has a suspicious personality. The person who has prepared to take back the wife issues notice to the wife in the form of Ext.P1 on 3.7.2003 praying for a divorce. It has also come out in evidence that the husband has moved the court for divorce of the wife and it is in such a circumstance he wants the court to believe that he is prepared to take back his wife. I am unable to agree with the same. So on analysis of the evidence of PW1 ad RW1 coupled with the documentary evidence Ext.P1, R1 and R2, the version of the wife she has to live separately on account of the cruelty and suspicion appears to be probable and reasonable and therefore she is entitled to live separately. RPFC.153/05 3 4. Now turning to the quantum, the wife would contend that the husband is the owner cum driver of autorikshaw. But the husband would at least admit that he is a driver of an autorikshaw. The contention that he is getting meager income of Rs.40 to 50/- per day is appears to be unbelievable in todays set up. The court below did not award an excessive amount but only granted a maintenance of Rs.800/- to the wife and Rs.600/- to the child which, by any stretch of imagination can be said to be a higher side. The driver of an autorikshaw is certainly capable of making that payment. It is true that he has to look after his parents. It is equally responsible to see he looks after his wife and child. So from this discussions I find there are no valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court and therefore revision lacks merit and dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE sou.