IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 130 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.9/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------- K.SAVITHRI, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.N.V.KUNHAMBU, SHIJU NIVAS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHERUVATHUR, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SMT. DHANYA P.ASOKAN BY ADV. MRI.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- N.V.KUNHAMBU, S/O.AMBU, SENIOR GANGMAN, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, RESIDING AT RAILWAY QUARTERS, CHERUVATHUR, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. MR. SREEVINAYAKAN BY ADV. MR.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 130 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.9/05. The retired husband and fairly old wife have taken a war path for redressal of the grievance in the form of claiming maintenance by the wife. The husband who is a gangman had retired after the commencement of the proceedings. Documents reveal that he is having approximately Rs.3,000/- as pension. It is the contention of the wife that the couple got four children in the wedlock of which one son is totally disabled, one partially disabled and two other children are free from any problem. The wife would contend that the husband started having illicit connection with one Sarala when it was questioned the miseries started to begin. According to her she was mercilessly beaten so too the children and therefore the life became miserable and ultimately she had preferred police complaints. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 130 OF 2006 -:2:- 2. On the other hand the husband would contend the problem started in 2002 when the in-laws arrived at in the matrimonial home. The husband was really tortured and ultimately he has to leave the matrimonial premises for his safety. The Court below concurred with the case of the husband and dismissed the maintenance petition. It is against that the wife had moved this revision. 3. Heard. Here the result depends upon the acceptability of the evidence orally tendered by the parties. It is oath against oath. Fairly two senior people in age are before the Court. The husband is a railway gangman and the wife is a housewife with four children of which two are disabled. The children are being looked after by the wife and husband is now settled down in another man's railway quarters even according to him. The Court below found that though the wife stated that the trouble has begun in 1999 that was not her case. When she filed a complaint before the police where it is stated that the cruelty has started only in January, 2002 but at least from that point of time there is a consistent version for the wife regarding the cruelty meted out to her. The husband himself is a man aged 60 years and he R.P.(F.C.) NO. 130 OF 2006 -:3:- would say that his father-in-law and mother-in-law are aged about 60-61 years. This cannot be correct at all nor these old people at this age would be able to attack this man is a story which cannot be believed. The husband has left the matrimonial home and had started living in railway quarters. The wife has complained of beating and the divorce petition filed by the husband had been dismissed and according to him an appeal is pending before this Court. Now, why should a wife who had lived almost three decades with a husband one day accuse the husband of ill-treatment that too when she is saddled with a responsibility of looking after physically handicapped children of which one is almost 100% handicapped. How could she capable of asking help from her parents who are also on the late evenings of their lives. So it is in this back ground the Family Court has to analyze the evidence and it should not have a technical approach in doing so. So the evidence of PW2 in my view appears to be more realistic and the husband had never behaved responsibly in this case except for sending four money orders during the pendency or after the commencement of the alleged mis understanding between the couple. The evidence of RW2 who R.P.(F.C.) NO. 130 OF 2006 -:4:- is said to be a neighbour also cannot be believed for the reason that there is a case pending against him for attempting to outrage the modesty of the daughter of the couple in which husband of the girl is also involved and his evidence also does not inspire any confidence. 4. RW3 a friend of husband who is in the railways has got a house just at a distance of 4 kms. away and still is staying in the quarters and that it is in that house the counter petitioner resides. Under normal circumstances a retired employee cannot continue in a railway quarters and the person to whom quarters is allotted is not expected to handover the quarters to any other employee. So all these would indicate the closeness between RW3 and RW1. So the evidence of RW2 and RW3 which are supposed to be independent, are really partisan and not believable and cannot be said to be inherently probable in the back ground of the case. Evidence of PW1 would certainly had also some embellishment here and there and the same would reveal that she is not being looked after by the husband. Therefore she is entitled to separate maintenance as provided by law. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 130 OF 2006 -:5:- 5. Now the only question is regarding the quantum. He is a retired employee with about Rs.3,000/- as pension and two of the children are almost earning and the wife has to look after the physically handicapped children. Taking into consideration his necessity as well as the necessity of the wife I feel at least an amount of Rs.1,000/- can be awarded as maintenance to the wife in this case. 6. Therefore the revision is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside and the wife, the revision petitioner is awarded a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- from the date of petition and the husband is directed to pay the same. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-