IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 302 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.233/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. JAMEELA, AGED 24 YEARS D/O.K.B.ABDULLA , KUNJAR HOUSE, ARUJUNAMKUZHI, PO, PATLA, PATLA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. 2. FATHIMATH RAMLA, AGED 3 YEARS D/O.MUHAMMED KUNJAR HOUSEL ARJUNAMKUZHI, PO, PATLA, PATLA VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST.REP. BYER HER GUARDIAN MOTHER, JAMEELA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT / COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED , AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, MOGRALPUTHUR HOUSE, PO.MOGRALPUTHUR, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------- R.P.F.C. NO. 302 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This revision is preferred by the wife whose claim for maintenance had been rejected by the Family Court confining it to maintenance to the minor child alone. The Family Court found that there are inconsistencies and rejected the case of the wife. An 18 year old young lady had married the respondent and a child has been born in the wedlock. It is also seen that the family of the wife belongs to a very poor class and it is contended that the marriage was settled as negotiated by the respective fathers taking into consideration some handicap of the husband. What is the handicap is not seen anywhere in evidence. The reason for the handicapped is stated to be a motor accident in 1994. The marriage has taken place in 2005. The wife would depose before the court that she was not treated in the way in which the wife is to be treated and she was put to very hard work and there was also abuses and cruelty from the members of the family of the husband. It has also come out in evidence that difference of opinion was sorted out by mediation by which she came back to the matrimonial home. Ultimately after R.P.F.C. NO. 302 OF 2009 2 the birth of the child she was put back in the matrimonial home by her father which also did not last long on account of the cruelty and she has to leave that place. The husband would submit that on account of his handicap and disability the wife does not want to live with him. Though disability is projected what is the disability, what is the incapacity is not known. The Family Court felt that when a petition in 2008 November was filed u/S.498(A) and subsequently the maintenance case was filed it should have been mentioned in the latter case. The wife had stated about her earlier experiences and just because no mention to made about 498(A) petition it cannot be said she is not placing true picture before this Court. On an over all analysis of the evidence it is revealed that there is rupture in the matrimonial relationship and that the wife is entitled to live separately. As there is no material evidence to prove the real income or the real capability of the husband to do the work only a nominal amount can be awarded as maintenance which I fix as Rs.500/-. Therefore, the revision is allowed and the rejection of maintenance of the wife is set aside and she is directed to be paid maintenance Rs.500/- per R.P.F.C. NO. 302 OF 2009 3 month from the date of petition. Needless to say the order of maintenance in favour of the child stands confirmed. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. pm