IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 91 of 2004() --------------------- MC.130/2002 of FAMILY COURT,KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------- 1. ANNAMMA @ ANU, D/O.THOMAS, POOKKULATHEL HOUSE, CHIALVU P.O., CHILAVU KARA, KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. MARIYAM @ SANGHU, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN, MOTHER, 1ST PETITIONER. BY MR.MATHEW JOHN (K), ADVOCATE MR.SUJESH MENON V.B.,ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDNET: -------------------------------------- SEBASTIAN @ SAJAN MON K.ANTONY S/O.ANTONY, KOKKATTUMUNDAKKAL (MULANGASSERIL) POOVARANI P.O., URULIKUNNUM KARA, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, ELEKKULAM VILLAGE. BY MR.S.PRASANTH,ADVOCATE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P(F.C) No. 91 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T This revision is preferred by the wife who has lost her case for maintenance on the ground that she is having income to maintain herself. The unfortunate couple are Veterinary Doctor and his wife. A child is born to them in the wedlock. A reading of the evidence of both the persons would reveal that both of them have thrown scandalous allegations against each other. The wife would attribute extra marital relation ship with a neighbour and husband would attribute that she is a lady without any chastity even before the marriage. The trial court found that she had made reasonable ground to leave separately. The court below refused her maintenance on the ground that she is having a landed property of 75 cents and further by virtue of an assignment of the property she has obtained Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) as cash. Besides this, she is also a qualified person in fashion technology and she is having resource to mobilise funds. The husband also is a Veterinary Doctor by profession and even according to him, admittedly his mother had given two acres of R.P(F.C) No. 91 of 2004 -2- land and there are rubber trees to be tapped. The wife would allege that he is having private practice as well and is making money. The facts and circumstances of the case would reveal that both of them at least belong to good middle class families. Whether the possession of 75 cents of land by the wife is sufficient to disallow her claim for maintenance is a good question. It is only an agricultural land. It is true, she did not disclose in the petition regarding the ownership of 75 cents of land. Now a days paddy cultivation is dwindling down depending upon weather and other circumstances. The lower court has not properly bestowed its attention to the factum of cultivation or derivation of income. In a family where there 8 or 9 children, it is brothers who look after the property and not the ladies personally. So the mere possession of 75 cents of land shall not make us come to the conclusion that she does have means. So far as Rs. 3 lakhs is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner assigned a portion of land and utilised that money to be given as the marriage presentation to the husband and a suit is pending with respect to the return of that amount from the husband by the wife. So I am afraid that the court below has erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the wife can maintain R.P(F.C) No. 91 of 2004 -3- herself. Just because she is a qualified person in fashion technology, one cannot come to the conclusion that she is deriving income from that. Nothing is established before the court to show that she is running any institution so as to earn income. Therefore, I set aside the findings by the court below regarding means of the petitioner. So far as the respondent is concerned, he is a Government employee in the Veterinary department as Veterinary Surgeon besides having land and also rubber tapping. So he is an affluent man and any man with health is bound to maintain the wife and therefore he has to be ordered to pay maintenance to the wife. So far as the quantum is concerned, I find that the court below has been liberal in granting Rs. 2,000/- to the child and therefore in order to strike the balance, I feel an amount of Rs. 1,500/- be awarded to the wife, especially due to the drawback that she is having some landed property and she is a qualified person. So I modify the award of the court below and hold that the 1st petitioner is also entitled to receive maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- from the date of petition. 2. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent submits before me that the petition for divorce had been filed by the husband against the wife and family court at Kottayam has granted R.P(F.C) No. 91 of 2004 -4- a divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife. I do not want to further probe into that but it is sufficient if I say from the ingredients under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code is attracted, it will not be a bar for the party to proceed under that section. 3. In the result, RPFC is partly allowed and the 1st petitioner, viz, the wife is given a maintenance amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of petition. The RPFC is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE rhs