IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 103 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.503/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, PARAMMAL VEEDU, CHANKAVETTIL, SWAGATHA MEDU, CHERUSSOLA AMSOM, KUNNUMMEL, RANDATHANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONERS : -------------------------------------- 1. SAJITHA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.MOIDEEN, KAZHUNGIL VEEDU, EDARIKOD, KLARI AMSOM DESOM, AMBALAVATTOM, EDARIKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ANSAR RAHAMAS, 8 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, MINOR. 3. MUHAMMED ASHIF, 3 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, MINOR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/MOTHER IST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1 TO R3 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE FOR R4 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 103 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.503/04. The Family Court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- to the wife and Rs.600/- and Rs.500/- to the children respectively and it is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard. A perusal of the order would reveal that the husband had pronounced thalaq on 18.9.03. So it is very clear that there is no intention to look after his wife. So she is entitled to live separately. It has also to be stated that by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan AIR 2010 SC 305 a Muslim wife is also entitled to maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. till she gets remarried. So irrespective of the question of thalaq or not the disqualification comes only when the wife gets remarried. Therefore the said wife is entitled to maintenance. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 103 OF 2006 -:2:- So far as the quantum is concerned according to the wife he is a land broker whereas he would contend that he is an auto rickshaw driver. The Court has observed that for the purpose of the case he had travelled in an auto rickshaw from Tirur to Manjeri which indicates his financial position. Whatever it may be, the amount awarded in the case is only Rs.700/- to the wife and Rs.600/- and Rs.500/- to the children. This may not be said to be arbitrary or excessive by any stretch of imagination. Therefore the quantum also cannot be reduced. From these discussions there is no merit in this case and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-