IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 292 of 2007() ---------------------- M.C.NO.323/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALI, S/O KOYAKITTY, THOTTUKANNI HOUSE, MUTHUR,TIRUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, TRIKANDIYUR AMSOM,MUTHUR DESOM, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABDUL KHADER, PULLAYIL HOUSE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, MR.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF, MR.LAL K.JOSEPH, MR.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL. RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. AMINA, D/O MAYIN, 40 YEARS, KORANTHODI HOUSE, KIZHAKKEPPATTUPADI, ATHAVANAD AMSOM, P.O.ATHAVANAD. 2. THE STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV.MR.A.KRISHNAN R2 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.7840/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.292/2007 DISMISSED 04/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.292 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.323/2006. The husband had been directed to pay Rs.3,000/= per month and aggrieved by the same, the revision is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel would contend that as divorce has been effected by pronouncement of Talaq, wife is not entitled to claim maintenance. The family court had considered it in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the decision reported in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.(2002 (3) KLT 537). It has been laid down in that case that there must be reasonable cause for pronouncement of the talaq and it is also imperative that it must be preceeded by attempts for conciliation between the husband and wife. 3. In this case there was no attempt for any mediation. The wife was never consulted in the matter before pronouncement of the alleged talaq. Therefore essential : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.292 OF 2007 conditions required are not satisfied and so it cannot be said that a valid talaq is pronounced. 4. Now turning to the quantum. It is seen from the discussion of the family court that members of the families of both the husband and wife are working abroad and they are in gulf country for a large number of years. Just because a person is in gulf country, the court cannot jump to the conclusion that he will have a very substantial income. But until and unless the conditions are better than that is available in the home country, nobody will venture to go abroad and live and lead a bachelors life. Therefore there can be a reasonable presumption of an average income at least. It is equally true that when a person is employed abroad, he may have to spend money for each and every thing including accommodation which is generally costlier. Therefore taking into consideration all these materials I feel that a reasonable amount of Rs.2,500/= will be sufficient to be ordered in this case. 5. Therefore the revision is disposed of by modifying the maintenance awarded from Rs.3,000/= to Rs.2,500/= : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.292 OF 2007 payable from the date of petition. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.292 OF 2007