IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 108 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.243/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ KAIPPADATH SOUFEELA, 22 YRS, D/O. MUHAMMED BAVA, KATTIPPARUTHI AMSOM, KOLAMANGALAM, VALANCHERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- PANATHODIYIL FASALU, 25 YRS, S/O. KUNHIPOCKER, KOLAMANGALAM, VALANCHERI P.O., KATTIPPARUTHI AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.108 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R The wife, who was refused maintenance by the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.243/2005, has approached this Court for redressal of her grievance in the form of revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. It is the case of the wife that 100 sovereigns of gold and Rs.3 lakhs given to her at the time of the marriage were misappropriated by the husband and members of his family and thereafter she was meted out with cruelty which ultimately lead her to live separately. On the other hand, the husband would contend that though marriage was performed and when there was an attempt made to take the wife to the matrimonial home, father of the wife complained that son-in-law is suffering from so many ailments and therefore, he requested for divorce. It is submitted by the husband that they never lived as husband and wife even for a day and there has been no matrimonial : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.108 OF 2006 cruelty and even today, the husband is prepared to take back the wife. But whenever and wherever the wife meet him, she had only one word to say i.e, divorce. It is in this backdrop the family court did analyse the materials before it. The wife has also moved an application for reimbursement of amount on account of misappropriation of gold ornaments etc. 3. The family court found that, even according to the wife, she had gone to the matrimonial house only after six months whereas the alleged misappropriation is said to have taken place within three months from the date of the marriage. The family court found that evidence of the wife is not at all convincing and therefore negatived the prayer. The husband approached the police station for reunion but the wife and members of her family never intended any sort of reunion but they want only a divorce. So the wife never had inclination to join the husband. The family court also found that even though the husband was prepared to take the wife and live together, the wife has no interest to accompany him. Under these circumstances, the family : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.108 OF 2006 court held that there are no reasonable grounds for the wife to live separately and therefore declined maintenance. I do not find any perversity or illegality committed by the court below in arriving at such a decision. It does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.108 OF 2006