IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 93 of 2005() --------------------- MC.129/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------- SADANANDAN, S/O. VAVA, AGED 49 YEARS, KAKKRISSERIVEETTIL, PUTHUVYPU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.J.SHEEBA MARIAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. NALINI, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. NARAYANAN, AYIRAMPARAMBU VEETTIL, KARUKATHIRUTHI P.O., PONNANI. 2. VISMAYA, AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.9650/2005 IN RP(FC) NO.93/2005 DISMISSED 11/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.129/2004. The wife and minor child of the revision petitioner moved an application for maintenance and the court below granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/= to the wife and Rs.500/= to the child. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. A perusal of the order would establish that the couple got married in the year 1994 and they parted in 2003. The wife would contend that the husband was always ill treating her and at last unable to bear the ill treatment, she had left the matrimonial home and came to her house. The version of the husband is that the wife was complaining about lack of facilities in the matrimonial home and that is the reason for her separate living. 3. It has to be remembered that she had resided in the matrimonial home for 9 years and there is no case or materials : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2005 to show that she had ever complained of lack of facilities in the house. Under ordinary circumstances no wife will part company with her husband unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The family court analysed the matter and held that the evidence of PW1 is more probable and acceptable and held that there are reasons to live separately. I decline to interfere with the said finding. 4. The next question is regarding the quantum. The wife would contend that the husband is a driver in a boat whereas he would contend that he is only a coolie worker. The family court analysed the materials and found that the parties belong to the fishermen community and brothers of the revision petitioner are fishermen and therefore it is held that probability of the revision petitioner having a job connected with the sea is more probable and acceptable. 5. He may be a fisherman or driver of a boat and whatever it may be, it can be seen that the amount awarded is only Rs.700/= to the wife and Rs.500/= to the child which by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2005 Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order under challenge and the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2005