IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 152 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC NO.91 OF 2006 OF FAMILY COURT,MALAPPURAM. .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MC: ----------------------------------------------------- ABOOBACKER, S/O. EASANKUTTY NADAKASSERI, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, PULLIPARAMB P.O.,CHELAMBRA,(NOW AT MIDDLE EAST PAPER COMPANY, PO BOX NO.32913,JIDHA 21438, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA), REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.SAITHALAVI,S/O.MUHAMMED,SANKARA EDAKKATTU HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUKODU, RAMANATTUKARA(VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN MC: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMLATH, D/O. ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, PULLIPPARAMB P.O., CHELAMBRA, TIRURANGADI TALUK. 2. NAHEEMA PARVEEN, (MINOR), D/O. RAMLATH, -DO- -DO- 3. MUHAMMED NASEEF FARAH, (MINOR), D/O. RAMLATH, -DO- -DO-, (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, MR.HARISH R. MENON. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.3886/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.152/2007 DISMISSED 01/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.152 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed in M.C.No.91/2006. The MC along with O.P.No.91/2006 was jointly tried and the wife was directed to be paid maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/= and the children Rs.1,500/= and Rs.1,000/= respectively. So far as the claim for return of ornaments are concerned, this Court is not concerned for the reason that it is only hearing the revision filed against the MC. 2. The points for determination in the maintenance case are; (1) whether the wife is having valid reasons for living separately, (2) whether there was divorce and (3) what is the quantum. Ext.x1 is the document produced to show that divorce has been effected. But the document would show that only two talaqs had been pronounced. In order to prove the divorce, RWs 2 and 3 are examined. RW3 is the husband of the revision petitioner's sister. He had deposed to a question in the chief examination that : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.152 OF 2007 whether there was any talaq between the two family members before divorce, he has answered in the negative. He would speak about a mediation and his participation. According to him, the mediation was from the native place and at that time the revision petitioner was in the locality. But it is submitted that the revision petitioner had pronounced talaq only from abroad. RW2 who is a member of the jama-ath would depose that there is nothing to show about handing over of copy of the talaq. He could not show anything about the attempted mediation. According to him, . He had also reiterated that three talaqs had not been pronounced as per Ext.X1. In the Supreme Court decision reported in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. (2002 (3) KLT 537) it was held that there must be a proper pronouncement of the talaq. It is the settled proposition that there must be a mediation before the pronouncement of the talaq. Admittedly there is no evidence to prove the same. There are no three pronouncement of talaqs as envisaged under law. Therefore the alleged talaq : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.152 OF 2007 is not proved in this case and therefore the petitioner in the MC continues to be the wife of the revision petitioner. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned, the family court has referred to the evidence of RW4. I do not find that such a witness had been examined. Only up to RW3 had been examined. So, it cannot be taken as an evidence at all for the reason that there is no such evidence. It is a fact that the husband is still working abroad. Just because the wife submits that his income is Rs.30,000/=, one cannot jump to the conclusion that it is the income. There is no scrap of paper produced to prove the income of the husband. So under these circumstances, considering the fact that the husband is employed abroad, at the most a reasonable amount can be awarded as maintenance. Therefore I modify the award and fix the maintenance at Rs.2,000/= to the wife and Rs.1,000/= each to the children. The order of maintenance is modified accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.152 OF 2007 : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.152 OF 2007