IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 372 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.53/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- AISWARYA, D/O. NANU, INDIRA NIVAS, TARAVANADU LINE, VADAKKANTHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- RAMAKUMAR, S/O. CHUPPAMANI, NEAR TO SIVAN KOVIL, VADAKKANTHARA GRAMAM, VADAKKANTHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 372 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.53/07. The wife has filed a petition for maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from the husband and the Court below dismissed the application on the ground of suppression of facts and failure to prove that she is unable to maintain herself. The unfortunate couple are living separately after three months of the marriage and the allegations and the counter allegations are revolting and it has ended in filing of a divorce petition which had been dismissed against which an appeal is preferred and that is pending before this Court. U/s 125 Cr.P.C. a husband who is having sufficient means to pay is bound to maintain his wife unless it is proved that she is living separately without any reasonable and probable cause. The attack against the husband is in the form of mental as well as physical cruelty and the factum that it has R.P(F.C.) NO. 372 OF 2008 -:2:- resulted in the filing of a divorce petition would reveal that they are no more in good terms whereby they can live together harmoniously. The husband is said to be working in a jewellery at Ernakulam and having an income of Rs.6,000/-. The Court below found fault with the petitioner for suppressing the real genuine materials from its purview. 2. Admittedly there is a house in the joint name of the husband and wife and there is dispute to whom it belongs. Whatever it maybe, going by the document there is a property with a house in the name of husband and wife together and now it is occupied by a third person. The respondent in the revision petitioner had send a notice to one Anila demanding surrender of possession of the premises for which she had given a categoric reply in the form of Ext.P5 where she asserts that she is occupying the premises as a tenant under the revision petitioner and that the respondent has nothing to do with her. It is the case of the husband that the said house has been leased in favour of that person to start with for a rent of Rs.2,500/- which has been R.P(F.C.) NO. 372 OF 2008 -:3:- subsequently enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. When confronted with such a difficult situation in order to wriggle out of the problem the petitioner before the Court below pretends total ignorance and she wants every thing to be ascertained from her father. Admittedly the father and daughter are living together and father was in the Court hall at the time of examination of her and in spite of all these things she never wanted the father to be examined as witness. It is too much to believe that when a house is leased out in favour of a particular person that she does not know to whom it is leased out or what is the rent being collected from that tenant. As correctly said by the Court below there is suppression of material facts and material particulars which is detrimental to the case and therefore I cannot find fault with the Family Court in appreciating the matter in that perspective. The evidence is to start with the rent was Rs.2,500/- which was enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. A person who has leased the property is not able to say what is the rent which he receives by way of rent and therefore it is desirable R.P(F.C.) NO. 372 OF 2008 -:4:- that the version spoken to by RW1 can be accepted. When it is so there is an income of Rs.3,000/- for the lady exclusively from the premises and she is not parting even one rupee from that rent. Even her claim is for a maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- whereas she is getting an amount of Rs.3,000/-. It is certain that she is able to maintain herself from the income derived from the property which jointly belonged to the husband and wife. Therefore I do not find any merit in the contention much less any illegality or irregularity which requires interference at the hands of this revisional Court. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-