IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 109 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.26/2008 of Family Court, KASARAGOD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------ ANEESA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O K.MOHAMMED MINNIPADI, R/AT MINNIPADI HOUSE, MAJAL, PUTHUR VILLAGE, MOGRAL PUTHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- K.H.RAFEQUE, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O HASSAN KUNHI, R/AT UNIS MANZIL, PADANJI, PERDALA P.O., BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 109 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.26/08. The 21 year old wife and a minor child moved an application for maintenance against the husband and the Family Court declined to grant maintenance to the wife and granted Rs.750/- per month to the child. It is against that decision the wife has come up in revision for maintenance. 2. The young couple got married on 26.2.2006 and soon after the marriage the husband left for the gulf country. It is contended that on account of the ill-treatment by the in- laws she had to suffer a lot and ultimately in the 7 month of pregnancy she had left the matrimonial home. Though she was taken back to the matrimonial home the torture continued and she moved to her house and then filed an application u/s 498A IPC. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 109 OF 2009 -:2:- 3. On the other hand the husband would contend that he is prepared to look after the wife and child and that he is making an application for restitution of conjugal rights. It has to be remembered that the parties have reached a stage where the wife has even moved an application for prosecution of the husband and members of the family for cruelty. It has also to be remembered that why should a young girl aged 21 years be interested in staying away from the husband without any reason. The Family Court found that she had not explained the circumstances which made her leave the matrimonial home. I feel that the said approach was erroneous for the reason that it is pleaded and stated that cruelty starts after some days of the marriage and on account of the same she had to leave the matrimonial home and even after the delivery she came back but unable to withstand the cruelty moved to her house and then filed an application u/s 498A. So it has to be stated that the wife has given her own reasons for separate living. Attitude of the husband also is a matter which is worth consideration. The husband moved an application for restitution of conjugal rights and it can be seen R.P.(F.C.) NO. 109 OF 2009 -:3:- that he did not wait for any order in the petition but has got married and is living comfortably with his new wife. It shows the sincerity of the husband really in getting back the wife and child. Therefore I disagree with the views expressed by the Family Court and hold that there are sufficient reasons for the wife to live separately. 4. Now turning to the quantum. The husband was admittedly working abroad at the time of the marriage and now it is submitted that he is not having any resources but is helping his father in his textile business. The Family Court itself had found that he is young and healthy. It is the legal and moral responsibility of the husband to maintain the wife. Under Mohammedan law when a person thinks of a second marriage the law envisages that he should be in a position to treat the wives equally and also with equanimity. So considering the attitude of the person, the age of the person and capacity of the person I feel interest of justice requires that an amount of Rs.1,000/- has to be awarded to the wife as maintenance from the date of order namely 29.11.2008. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 109 OF 2009 -:4:- In the result R.P.(F.C.) is allowed and the order of the Family Court refusing maintenance to the wife is set aside and the wife is awarded a maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from 29.11.2008 payable by the husband. The amount due to the minor can be drawn by the mother. The amount, if any, paid or deposited shall be taken credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-