IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 408 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.41/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SUHARA .K., D/O.M.P.ABDULLA, KANNIYATUKKAM, P.O.CHENGALA, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. MASTER DILKHER C.H., AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN - MOTHER - FIRST PETITIONER. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- C.H.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.HASSANAR, KOLIKATTA CHERKLA MAZJID ROAD, CHERKLA, P.O.CHENGALA, CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 408 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.41/06. The wife and child moved applications for maintenance and the court below rejected the case of maintenance for the wife and awarded Rs.1,000/- to the child. It is against that decision the wife has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. On a consideration of the order it is clear that the husband had sent her money to a tune of Rs.2.39 lakhs when he was in gulf. But the wife denied operation of any such account. But Ext.X1 extract coupled with the evidence of RW1 would reveal that she had been operating that account from 24.11.00 to 4.11.05. She had also sold an item of property which was there and she would contend that it has been given to the husband which is not believed by the Court below. So the factum of her evidence that she was only happy for 1½ R.P.(F.C.) NO. 408 OF 2007 -:2:- years after the marriage, when the marriage had taken place on 31.12.92, cannot be true and correct. The husband working abroad had sent substantial amount to this lady for her upkeep and maintenance. Later he has come back from the gulf country. The Court below held that knowing that the husband is not employed in gulf country she had abandoned him and therefore held that there was no sufficient reason for the wife to live separately. Now the evidence would indicate that she is not speaking the truth which she is expected to state. Therefore I cannot find fault with the Family Court in appreciating the evidence in that fashion and arriving at a decision. So there is nothing to interfere with the decision rendered by the Family Court and hence the revision is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-