IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 3 of 2005() -------------------- MC.33/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------- IRUVETTY KALARICKAL SIVADASAN, S/O.RAMA PANCIKER, IRUVETTY KALARICKAL, V.K.ROAD, KALLEMPADAM, NILAMBUR TALUK, NILAMBUR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENT: --------------- E.K.SINDHU, D/O.E.K.PRABHAKARA PANICKER, IRUMBUZHI KALARICKAL, P.O.NARUKARA, MANJERI, ERNAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ============== R.P.F(C).No.3 OF 2005 =============== Dated this the 5th day of January 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C. No.33/2004. The revision petitioner is the husband. The court below found that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance and awarded a maintenance of Rs.750/- per month. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. Heard. The revision petitioner married the respondent on 16.4.2000 as per the customary law. It is the case of the wife that immediately after the marriage the husband and members of his family started ill treating her and ultimately on 1.8.2000 she was taken from the matrimonial home to her residence and thereafter the husband has totally deserted her. The husband according to her is an astrologer by profession having a daily income of Rs.500/-. On the contra the husband would contend that the wife, without any reason, had left the matrimonial home 2 weeks after marriage and therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance. I had perused the documentary as well as the oral evidence available in this case. The wife had deposed in detail about the marriage about the treatment metted out to her by her husband and also the reason R.P.F(C).No.3 OF 2005 2 for going back to her parental home. It is also stated that in order to have a peaceful life her parents again were prepared to give five more sovereigns which the husband demanded. So the consistence case of the wife is regarding cruelty. This is totally denied by the husband. It is true that the petition under Section 498 A ended in acquittal and it was mainly on the basis of physical cruelty. Now the husband submits that he is prepared to take back the wife. It has to be remembered that the wife has moved the petition under Section 498 A of the IPC in 2002 and the maintenance case is filed in 2004 and in the counter to that case, the husband expressed his readiness and willingness to take back the wife. When a wife had prosecuted the husband and the members of his family it is too difficult to believe that such a husband voluntarily would take the wife and look after her. The wife was only aged 22 years at the time of marriage and if there was no quarrel between the husband and wife, no wife would leave the husband as stated by him after 15 days. We have to consider the evidence and the facts that ladies still have the patience to tolerate in order to have a peaceful matrimonial life. So the evidence of the wife appears to be more probable and acceptable and she has left the matrimonial home only on account of her inability to continue there and therefore she was justified in R.P.F(C).No.3 OF 2005 3 living separately. Even if the husband is not an astrologer but only a casual labourer, considering the present circumstances a maintenance of Rs.750/- by a young able bodied man aged 35 years cannot be said to be on the higher side. It is only a just and reasonable amount. Therefore from the forgoing discussions I hold that there is nothing to interfere with the decision rendered by the Family Court and therefore the revision lacks merits and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns