IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 145 of 2007() ---------------------------------- MC.38/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ KHADEEJA C.A, D/O ABDUL RAHMAN, RESIDING AT CHALA ROAD, P.O.VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, MR.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- HANEEFA, S/O LATE ABDULLA, RESIDING AT HANEEFA MANZIL, NEAR MINI ESTATE, REHMANIA NAGAR, P.O.MUTTATHODI, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 145 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.38/06. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent and they got married on 10.10.04. It is alleged that at the time of marriage 1.25 lakhs of cash and 35 sovereigns of gold were given. After a few days the matrimonial disharmony started in the form of demand for dowry by the husband, his mother and sisters and ultimately led into physical and mental torture which forced the wife to leave the matrimonial home and so she had claimed maintenance. 2. On the other hand the respondent would contend that it is only a recalcitrant attitude of the wife that had resulted in the disharmony and she never wanted to look after the age old mother of the husband and she had no reason to live separately. The Court below on an appreciation of the materials dismissed the maintenance case. It is against that the present revision is preferred. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 145 OF 2007 -:2:- 3. I had gone through the documents produced as well as the certified copy of the depositions made available to me by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Ext.A1 is a letter written by the wife to her father intimating about the cruelty meted out to her in the matrimonial house. She had sent that letter through PW2, Naseer on 1.1.2006. It is her case that on receipt of the same the parents came there on 4.1.2006 and had taken back her to the parental house. PW3 is the father. He had also stated about the receipt of the letter and the unfortunate incident that had taken place in the house of the husband. PW1 is the claimant herself and she had deposed in detail about the cruelty faced by her in the matrimonial home. She had stated that the sister of the husband also had joined hands and had treated her with cruelty. It is true that the sisters are not residing in the same house but in Ext.A1 letter there is a recital to the effect that they are living nearby. Why should a 21 year old wife leave the matrimonial home leaving the company of a 24 year old young man is the question to be considered. Mother-in-law's R.P.(F.C.) NO. 145 OF 2007 -:3:- sickness and the refusal of the wife to look after her are all which can be proved by some cogent evidence. The ailment of the mother for a prolonged time can be proved by documents. It is true that there is an admission by PW1 that the mother was bedridden at the time when she left the matrimonial home. There is no point in disbelieving PWs.1 to 3 and accepting the evidence of RW1 which is not convincing. At least PWs. 2 and 3 speak about the incident of misery in the form of sending a letter dated 1.1.2006 itself. Therefore I find that the Family Court was not perfectly justified in arriving at a decision that there was no valid reason for the wife to live separately. 4. Now regarding the quantum. The husband would contend that though he is a decorator he gets only Rs.1,000/- per month whereas the wife would depose his income is more than Rs.15,000/-. It is only an oath against oath. But the fact remains that this person is an able bodied young man who is capable of doing work and is having some work. So taking into consideration that aspect I feel in the fitness of things a R.P.(F.C.) NO. 145 OF 2007 -:4:- maintenance of Rs.750/- per month can be ordered to be paid by the husband to the wife. In the result the R.P.(FC) is allowed. The order passed by the Family Court Judge is set aside and the petitioner in the M.C.38/06 is entitled to a maintenance of Rs.750/- per month to be paid by the husband that too from the date of petition. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-