IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 368 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.248/2008 of .................... REVISION PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS -------------------------------- 1. NAUSHILA, D/O.S.M.BASHEER AND W/O.MOHAMMED SHAREEF, WEST HILL, THALANGARA KUNNIL P.O.THALANGARA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. MOHAMMED SAHAD, AGED 4 YEARS. 3. FATHIMATH BADRIYYA, AGED 6 MONTHS, (PETITIONERS NO.2 & 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER NAUSHILA. BY ADVS.MR.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- MOHAMMED SHAREEF, S/O.MOIDU, PUIKKOOR HOUSE, RAHMATH NAGAR, OLAYATHADUKKA, P.O.MADHUR, KASARAGOD TALUK. R1 BY ADVS. MR.T.B.SHAJIMON, SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 368 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred by the unsuccessful wife in negativing her claim of maintenance by the Family Court, Kasaragod. A 23 year old lady with two small children aged 3 years, 5 months had approached the Family Court for maintenance. The marriage was conducted in the year 2004 and it is submitted that they were driven out of the matrimonial house on 27.4.2008. The learned Family Court Judge held that there is no reason for the wife to leave separately and declined her maintenance. 2. The case projected by the husband is that the wife wanted better living conditions and as there was no washing machine or T.V. in the house the wife does not want to continue her matrimonial relationship with the husband and it is also contended that when he had gone to attend the cradle ceremony of the 2nd child he found the gold chain put by him to the first child missing and when he ascertained from the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 368 OF 2009 -:2:- child that it was taken by the mother on questioning the same the wife and the members of the family had asked him to go out of the house. 3. At the out set one has to realise that a lady who is not having any financial resources being a mother of two young ones under ordinary circumstances would not abandon the husband to be on the mercy of somebody. I find the learned judge of the Family Court misses that point in very many cases which I had come through. There are recalcitrant women as well in the society and each case would depend upon the materials available and the facts and circumstances of that case. Now the apple of discord or cause of quarrel is regarding the questioning of a chain by the husband to the wife. Under ordinary circumstances it will not result in a serious situation at all. The husband is a person who claims to be a philanthropist for the reason that though all the Muslims of Kasaragod take money and gold for the marriage he did not take anything but at the same time he is very cautious about the gold chain worn by the child which would indicate about R.P.(F.C.) NO. 368 OF 2009 -:3:- the attitude of the man and I do not want to elaborate. The wife has spoken about the difficulties experienced by her in the matrimonial house also. Therefore on an analysis of the preponderance of probabilities of the case I am inclined to accept the version of PW1 to hold that she has reason to live separately. 4. So far as the quantum is concerned the wife wanted to project that the husband is a very rich and prosperous person whereas the husband would depose that he is a man without any resources. At least he is young and it is admitted that he is a part time instructor in a training school. Taking into consideration those aspects and in the absence of any concrete evidence to prove the income of the husband it may not be possible to order a higher amount though the parties may be entitled to the same. S.125 Cr.P.C. underlines the principles of providing maintenance to the wife and the order should not result in sending one party to the jail without being providing any maintenance to the wife and children. Therefore striking the balance in between, I award a nominal R.P.(F.C.) NO. 368 OF 2009 -:4:- amount as Rs.500/- to the wife as well. Therefore the revision petition is disposed of and the order of the Family Court refusing maintenance to the wife is set aside and the husband is directed to pay Rs.500/- to the wife as well from the date of petition and she is authorised to receive the amount on behalf of the children. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-