IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 119 of 2004() ---------------------- MC.444/2003 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- K.G.MANOJ KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. GOPALA KRISHNA PILLAI, KEEZHMADATH HOUSE, P.O. KANAYI, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. SATHI K., AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, VALIYACHAL, P.O. KANKOL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. K.VISHNU, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O. K.G.MANOJ KUMAR, VALIYACHAL, P.O. KANKOL, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SATHI K. 3. STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN FOR R1 SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI FOR R1 SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A.SALIM THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.APPLN.10581/2009 IN R.P.(FC).NO.119/2004 DISMISSED. 13.3.2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.(FC).NO.119 OF 2004 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C.No.444/2003. The court below found that the wife is living separately on account of only reasonable cause and directed the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.750/- to the wife and Rs.500/- to the child on 5.4.2003. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had taken me elaborately through the pleadings and evidence in this case. Matrimonial harmony is something which has to be preserved for a welfare society. But now a days, we find restlessness and breakage of marriage in plenty. It is a social problem that has to be dealt with. Similarly, in every matrimonial life, there will be ordinary wear and tear and RP(FC).119/04 2 when it goes beyond a limit, the relationship breaks with commencement of litigation. In this case, the unfortunate couple got married in 1995 and in the matrimonial relationship, a child was born. Immediately, after the marriage, the wife was taken to Delhi, the place of employment, and she became pregnant during the course of her stay therein and thereafter she came to the matrimonial home and then left for the parental home and she gave birth to a child. It is the case of the petitioner that consistently and persistently, she had been subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty and it had developed into a higher dimension when the brother of the husband got married, who got more dowry and gold ornaments. The wife complaints about the harassment by the husband, the mother-in-law and even the father-in-law. On the contrary, the husband would submit before the court that there was no reasonable cause for her to live separately and her version that nobody bothered about her after the marriage and after she came back from Delhi, is absolutely false. I have gone through the cross examination wherein there are some materials which would indicate and RP(FC).119/04 3 which is contradictory to what is stated in the chief examination. The wife would state that the husband and family members never bothered to look after her. But in the cross examination, it is seen that the parents came after the delivery, some amount was given as token and present and there was some attendance on the 28th day of the child. These are all materials which will be in the society and when the matrimonial relationship has not reached an irretrievably broken stage, attempts will be made to rejoin. What is the necessity of a wife to live separately from the husband is always a question of concern. Under the Indian Society, generally, we find the ladies tolerating and continue to live in the matrimonial home forgetting the unhappiness which they have therein. So, until and unless there are real reasons, no one will try to live separately. According to the husband, the reasons for the wife's separation is that when the mother-in-law was about to retire, they had decided to leave Kannur and settle down in Palakkad and that the wife does not want to go to Palakkad and that is why she had not joined him later. When a wife can join the husband at Delhi and live RP(FC).119/04 4 together for almost an year under the same roof, it may not be possible to believe that such a wife with the child, who requires the nurturing and care of the father, would hesitate to go to Palakkad, which is within the same State. So, unless there are reasons which makes the wife staying away under the ordinary circumstances, she would not be interested to live separately from the husband. However, the wife's house is also not so financially well equipped so as to have a luxurious life. Therefore, I find that the Family Court analyzed the evidence in perspective and also attempted to find out what shall be the cause. As I discussed earlier, the points put forward by the husband appears to be flimsy whereas the wife persistently and consistently speaks about the cruelty meeted out to her in the matrimonial home. Therefore, one cannot hold that she is living separately without any reasonable cause. This Court in the revisional jurisdiction, can interfere only when there is patent illegality, irregularity or perversity in appreciation of the law and evidence which I do not find in this case. In order to satisfy my conscience, I have read the entire evidence of both the parties and I am RP(FC).119/04 5 inclined to give more reliance on the evidence of PW1 to hold in her favour. The amount awarded is also only just and adequate and it cannot be stated as excessive by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the revision lacks merits and it is dismissed. Time is not yet come for a separation and if the members of the family will try, the husband and wife's life can be reunited and an attempt can be made even at this belated stage by the people who are concerned about the welfare of both parties. M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 6th November, 2008