IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 333 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.151/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CHINNARAJ, S/O.CHENNIYAPPA KOUNDER, KARIMANALIL, KOZHIJAMPARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. MR.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. MR.LIJU. M.P., MR.M.N.SAJEER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/NON-PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARATHAKAM, D/O. SUBBAYYA KOUNDER, VANDIKKARAN SUBBAYYA KALATHIL, SAMAD VIA., R.V.P. PUDUR, ERUTHEMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SIVASANKARAN, S/O. MARATHAKAM, -DO- -DO-. REPRESENTED BY THE NEXT FRIEND & MOTHER, SMT. MARATHAKAM, -DO- -DO-. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY R2 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.8702/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.333/2007 DISMISSED 9/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.333 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.151/2006. The wife and a six year old son moved an application against the revision petitioner for maintenance and the court below granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/= to the wife and Rs.700/= to the child. Aggrieved by the same, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that the order of maintenance passed by the court below is erroneous for the reason that there is no reason to live separately for the wife. 3. I had perused the evidence tendered in this case. It is very clear from the materials available that the wife and husband had some problems and they started living separately. Thereafter there was a case for maintenance and the wife joined the husband and has again resided together for one year. Again problems started and ultimately : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.333 OF 2007 they are living separately. The character of the husband is proved by the following: 4. The father of him did execute a Will and in the Will, allotted a property to the minor child with a condition that the father can look after the property. What the father does is he does not look after that property. He takes money from his brother and mortgages the property to his brother and has washed of his hands. This shows his love and affection towards the child. Though the learned counsel wants to project that he is a father who goes to the school to see the child. When questions were put, he himself has admitted that the wife and son were affectionate to his parents and vice versa. But always the husband insisted for separate preparation of food in the very same house. The father is residing in one side of the house and son and his wife were on the other side living separately. It is in this background the allegation that this man used to drink and create problems assume importance. So also no wife who has no resources at all will try to be away from the matrimonial home. So the evidence of Pw1 regarding the : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.333 OF 2007 act for separate living appears to be acceptable and therefore, I find that there is no error in such a finding. 5.Now turning to the question of quantum. Admittedly the husband is a conductor in Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation. He has got a gross salary of Rs.13,441/=. The net salary after deduction is Rs.3,196/=. One can take any amount of loan and try to repay it and that shall not be a ground for denying maintenance to the wife and children. He is a person with 55 cents of land. Therefore a man who is employed and has got landed properties is at least expected to maintain the wife and son in a reasonable manner. The family court has granted only maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/= to the wife and Rs.700/= to the child which by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.333 OF 2007 : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.333 OF 2007