IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 164 of 2007(Y) ------------------------------------- MC.301/2005 of THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S)/ RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- ABDULLA, S/O.MOHAMMED, RESIDING NEAR AMBEDKAR COLONY, HOSABATTU, HOSABETTU VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK, MANKESHWAR. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- NABEESA, D/O.ABBAS, W/O.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT NEERPANTHI, KUDALMERKALA VILLAGE, KASARAGODE TALUK, KUDELMERKALA P.O. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.K.MUHAMMED THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDE RON CRL.MA. NO.4276/2007 IN RPFC NO.164/2007 DISMISSED 19/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... RP(FC)No.164 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in MC.No.301/2005. The wife was granted maintenance of Rs.750/= by the husband from 30.3.2005. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. It is the case of the wife that they got married on 9.1.2003 at Rifathiya Juma Masjid. She was taken to the matrimonial home where the husband did have his first wife and children. As the first wife was unwell, she was made to do all the works and even cohabitation was prohibited and her life became miserable in the matrimonial home which forced her to leave that place. On the other hand, the husband would contend that he had never married this person and at the most she was only a servant maid in the house and when her father's demand for Rs.15,000/= was negatived, such a false case is cooked up. In the trial court, Pws1 to 3 and RW1 were examined and Ext.X1 was marked. The family court on analysis found in favour of the wife and ordered maintenance. : 2 : RP(FC)No.164 OF 2007 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit before me that materials are lacking to find in favour of the wife. He would contend that the marriage is not proved. In support of that contention, the wife had herself examined as PW1 and two other witnesses, PWs 2 and 3, were also examined. Ext.X1 is the copy of the Nikah register. It was produced at the instance of the wife. PW3 is a member of the Mahal and he had deposed that he had participated in the marriage and he knows the correctness of the same. He would also depose that he was not the Secretary at the relevant point of time but as a member of the Mahal had participated in the marriage and therefore marriage had taken place. One Noorudeen was stated to be the middle man of the marriage. It is true that he had not been examined. The family court on an exhaustive discussion found that the husband did not have a proper case at all. He pretended ignorance with the lady and he changed his version to that of a servant maid and ultimately cooked up a false case of demand for Rs.15,000/= by her father. The : 3 : RP(FC)No.164 OF 2007 court felt that the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 coupled with Ext.X1 is more probable. The husband even had gone to the extend of contending that there was a prohibited degree of relationship between the parties. But nothing is proved. Therefore, analysis by the family court cannot be said to be irregular or illegal or perverse which warrants interference at the hands of the revisional court. So far as the quantum is concerned, the court below found that he has got an income of Rs.5,000/=. Most probably the court had taken into consideration ailing of the first wife, children etc and ordered a reasonable sum of Rs.750/= only to be paid as maintenance to the wife. I find that it does not call for any interference. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. The amount, if any, already paid shall be adjusted towards the amount due from the husband to the wife. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : RP(FC)No.164 OF 2007 : 5 : RP(FC)No.164 OF 2007