IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 44 of 2010() --------------------- MC.609/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- SHAMMY SHABEER, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KUNHEETHU,RESIDING AT PERUMBALLY HOUSE, MAKKARAPARAMBU PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.FRANCIS J.VATTAKUZHI, MR.S.JIJI. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- KHAIRUNNEESSA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.MOOLAKKUNNAN AYAMED, MOOLAKKUNNAN HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MANATHMANGALAM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADVS. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.1099/2010 IN RP(FC) NO.44/2010 DISMISSED 30/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.44 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.609/2009. It is the case of the wife that the husband has neglected her and therefore, he is bound to pay maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.40,000/= per month. The husband on the other hand would contend that the wife is an employed person and capable of looking after herself and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance at all. The family court fixed a maintenance of Rs.18,750/= and directed the husband to pay the same. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. I do not want to elaborate the matter for the reason that the matter requires reconsideration. But at the same time I have to point out that the method adopted by the family court cannot be sustained and it requires reconsideration. 3. A dentist husband accompanied a London wife : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.44 OF 2010 expecting prosperous Masters Degree in Dentistry but it did not become fruitful and the rupture started. Ultimately the husband has landed in India and the wife continues to be in London. The wife by giving a declaration that she is working as a Waitress with Rasa W1, 6 Dering Street, London, applied for emigration and sought permission to take her husband in order to enable him to find out employment on his arrival at United Kingdom. This document is marked as Ext.B1. So there is a material which indicates about the employment of the wife. But the family court stated that they are all made only for the purpose of procuring a visa for the husband and therefore on the basis of the fact that she is studying for B.Sc Forensic Science held that the wife was not employed. It is not proper and it requires real analysis of the materials. 4. One is not expected to give false statement before a lawful authority and the court cannot take such declarations light heartedly. Therefore the court is expected to consider it in the way in which it is to be done. Similarly I find that the family court fixes the income of : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.44 OF 2010 the husband also in the very same fashion. The husband would depose before the court that he is having a daily income of Rs.150/=. I also do not agree with the same but what the family court did was he said that one more zero can be fixed to 150 and fix his daily income at Rs.1,500/=. It is not a proper method at all. There will be documents such as registers maintained if he is a private practitioner and if he is an assessee, income tax assessment. These things can be considered to fix the income of a person. 5. In this case we find that materials are really necessary to find out whether the wife is employed and if so what is his income and also what is the income of the husband. Without these materials, one cannot decide the question regarding quantum of maintenance to be paid in the case. 6. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the family court and remit the case back with a direction to consider the matter afresh with opportunity to all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.44 OF 2010 in accordance with law. It is seen that difference between the couple is something which can be patched up and therefore one more attempt may be made to find out whether reunion is possible. The wife is permitted to withdraw Rs. One lakh that is deposited and the husband shall continue to pay at the rate of Rs.5,000/= per month as an interim measure till a final decision is taken in the matter. parties are directed to appear before the family court on 03.05.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.44 OF 2010