IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 RPFC.No. 152 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.618/2008 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- V.RAJAN,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SHANMUGHAM,VASANTHA SADANAM, KARINILAM P.O.,PULIKKUNNU, ERUMELI,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- K.K.SAUDAMINI,KAVUMPADIYIL HOUSE, PUKKALATHUR,PULPATTA P.O., MANCHERRY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI FOR R THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.(F.C.)No.152 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.618 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. The first respondent herein, the wife of the revision petitioner filed the above petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order for separate maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. It was pleaded that she was employed as a part-time sweeper but the income was not sufficient for her maintenance. On the other hand the revision petitioner who is a tapping worker had been getting Rs.12,000/- per month from his tapping work. In addition to that he had been getting Rupees one lakh per annum as agricultural income. 2. The revision petitioner contented that he is only a coolie and had to look after his minor child and that the respondent is able to maintain herself and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. As part of enquiry, the first respondent was examined R.P.(F.C.)No.152 of 2009 2 as PW.1, Exts.P1 and P2 series were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner himself and another were examined as Rws.2 and RW.1. 4. The trial court on evaluation of the evidence arrived a finding that the respondent was getting only a monthly salary of Rs.2,951/-. Out of that she had to pay Rs.1,000/- to clear the loan liabilities and with the balance she had to meet the expenditure for attending the office and that the income that she had been receiving was not sufficient to maintain herself. On the other hand it was found that the revision petitioner had been earning not less than Rs.250/- per day and that he could at least provide Rs.1,000/- for the maintenance of the respondent. As a result the petition was allowed directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. 5. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. Along with the revision petition, the revision petitioner filed a petition as Criminal M.Appl.No.8728 of 2009 for receiving a document, which was appended as Annexure-6. Annexure -6 would show that the first respondent is working as a full time menial in a R.P.(F.C.)No.152 of 2009 3 Government Higher Secondary School and had been drawing a salary of Rs.6,336/- per month. Her claim in the petition is only Rs.3,000/-. The amount that she is drawing as salary is sufficient enough to maintain herself. 6. Going through the petition it is seen that she had not disclosed as to what exactly was her income and her requirements. She had vaguely stated that she had been getting only meagre income and she is entitled to get Rs.3,000/- from the revision petitioner. In the evidence she had advanced a case that she had to pay Rs.1,000/- towards loan liabilities and a sum of Rs.2,200/- had been spent towards the rent of the house and travel expenses, etc. It appears that it is taking into account the subsequent developments in evidence, the trial court had fixed the amount in the impugned order. Now there is yet another change of circumstance whereby respondent is found earning more than what she had claimed in the petition. The document now produced was not with the revision petitioner at the time when enquiry was conducted. In the above circumstances, the matter requires re- consideration by the trial court for which the matter is to be R.P.(F.C.)No.152 of 2009 4 remitted back to the trial court. Therefore, this petition is allowed. Order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner to adduce further evidence. In the event, the respondent so proposes, she also shall be given a chance to adduce evidence. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.