IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 55 of 2005() --------------------- MC.410/2003 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- THAMPI, S/O.PODIYAN, PYKKARAPARAMPIL VEEDU, KURUNGAZHA P.O., KOLPRAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------- 1. MINI, W/O.THAMPI, MATTACKKATTUCHIRAYIL VEEDU, THALAVADI P.O., KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. NISHA THAMPI, (MINOR), D/O.MINI, DO. DO. 3. JISHA THAMPI, (MINOR), D/O.MINI, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R1 TO R3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 55 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.410/03. The petitioners therein claimed to be wife and children of the respondents therein moved an application for maintenance and the Family Court had ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800/- each to the petitioners from 5.11.03. It is against that decision the respondent therein has come up in revision. The brief facts of the case is as follows. 2. It is the case of the first petitioner in the M.C. that the respondent therein had married her on 9th May, 1988 as per the Hindu rites and religious ceremonies and two children are born to them in the wedlock. Two or three months after the marriage the life became miserable and the husband used to come fully drunk and ill-treat her and children and on one occasion she was beaten mercilessly and she sustained injuries and had to get herself admitted in the hospital. Ext.A1 is the wound certificate. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 55 OF 2005 -:2:- 3. On the other hand the husband would contend that the first petitioner in the M.C. is his uncle's daughter and she used to come to his house and in that relationship the children are born. Or in other words the revision petitioner disputes the marriage between him and the first respondent in the revision petition. In order to prove the same PWs.1 to 3 had been examined. 4. PW1 is the first petitioner in the M.C. She would depose before Court that the marriage had taken place as per the ceremonies on 9th May, 1988. She had also deposed that she was given three sovereigns of ornaments but the marriage was not registered. PW2 is a relative of both. According to him the first petitioner in the M.C. and himself are related as the children of brothers. The revision petitioner is his father's sister's son. He would depose that he had attended the marriage on 9th May, 1988 and it took place in the residence of PW1 and relatives also participated and she was taken to the respondent's house. He also speaks about the birth of two children and also about the income of the persons. He had R.P.(F.C.) NO. 55 OF 2005 -:3:- been examined at length and had categorically denied the suggestion that first petitioner in the M.C. and the revision petitioner were in love and children are only born in that relationship. He had categorically asserted that he had given the marriage dresses and he had participated in the marriage. PW3 is a neighbour of the first revision petitioner. He had also deposed that he had also participated in the marriage and the marriage had taken place in May, 1988 and about 100 persons participated. The bridegroom was brought to the marriage Mandapam and he had given the Pudava and tied the Thali exchanged garlands and rounded the Mandapam. He also speaks about the marriage. Initially there was no cross- examination. So an application was moved as M.P.568/04 for recalling PWs.1 to 3 for cross examination which was allowed thus all the witnesses had been cross-examined. Revision petitioner did not even mount the box to give any evidence in support of his contentions and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 remains unchallenged and therefore I hold that there was a valid marriage between the first petitioner in the M.C. and the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 55 OF 2005 -:4:- revision petitioner and that the children had been born in the wedlock. 5. Now the next question is regarding the reason to live separately. The wife had deposed about the cruelty meted out by the husband to her including the hospitalisation which is evidenced by Ext.A1. PW2 also had spoken about the same and therefore it can be seen that there is reasonable ground for the wife to live separately. 6. Now on the question of quantum. The Family Court has awarded Rs.800/- each as maintenance and it is seen that the revision petitioner is a coolie and is a healthy man, an amount of Rs.800/- each to the children and to the wife at this point of time cannot be said to be on the higher side by any stretch of imagination. Therefore the quantum also does not require any interference. Thus the revision fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-