IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 266 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.243/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- K.M.MUSTHAFA, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA HAJI, KORANKANDI MALAYIL HOUSE, VILLIAPALLI AMSOM DESOM, VILLIAPALLI P.O., VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SEMEENA, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. HAMEED, MATHATH HOUSE, KUTTIADI AMSOM, VALAYANNUR DESOM, KUTTIADI P.O., VADAKARA TALUK. 2. MUHAMMED SHEBIN (MINOR), S/O. MUSTHAFA, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SEMEENA, -DO- -DO- THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.266 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of the order passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.243 of 2008 awarding maintenance to the respondents, wife and son at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively, per month. 2. Petitioner married respondent No.1 on 9.9.2004. In that wedlock respondent No.2 is born. Respondents alleged that petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to physical and mental cruelty and harassment and hence she had to withdraw from the company of petitioner. She claimed that even at a time she was bearing respondent No.2, she was assaulted. Respondent No.2 was born on 10.10.2007. Petitioner never cared for the respondents. Petitioner even tried to kill respondent No.1 by pouring kerosene and setting fire. According to the respondents, petitioner is an autorickshaw driver having landed properties and is earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Petitioner denied the allegation of cruelty. He claimed that respondent No.1 had withdrawn from his company for no reason whatsoever. He wanted to see the child. But relatives of respondent No.1 prevented him from that. He filed a petition in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara stating that respondent No.1 is in wrongful confinement but that petition was dismissed. It is also contended by petitioner that he had been undergoing treatment for rheumatic complaints and RP(FC) No.266/2009 2 that also may have persuaded respondent No.1 to withdraw from his company. Evidence of both sides was recorded in the court below. Learned Judge observed that in the absence of any complaint (to the police) from respondent No.1, her version that petitioner attempted to kill her was not believable. 3. Question for consideration is whether respondent No.1 has sufficient reason to live away from the petitioner. She has given evidence regarding alleged ill-treatment and harassment. She stated that she was subjected to such harassment even when she was bearing respondent No.2. Court below has observed that there is no reason to disbelieve her. It is also observed that normally a wife would not desire to leave the company of her husband. In this case, respondent No.1 has a child as well. Therefore, in the normal course she would not have desired to keep away from the company of petitioner. Having regard to the evidence on record I find no reason to interfere with the finding of court below that respondent No.1 has valid reason for separate residence and is entitled to get maintenance. 4. So far as amount awarded is concerned, it is only Rs.1,000/- per month for respondent No.1 who is aged 22 years and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.2 who is aged one and a half years. Considering the needs and requirements of respondents I am not inclined to think that the amount awarded is excessive. 5. So far as the means of the petitioner is concerned, some evidence is produced by the petitioner to show that he had undergone treatment for rheumatic complaints but I am unable to think from that evidence that petitioner RP(FC) No.266/2009 3 is disabled for ever from earning. It is not disputed that petitioner is an autorickshaw driver by occupation. The amount awarded in my view is not beyond the capacity of petitioner. I do not find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge at the instance of petitioner. Revision is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks