IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 67 of 2005() --------------------- MC.341/2002 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ MALIYAKKEL ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEENKUTTY, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MALIYAKKEL ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEENKUTTY, PUTHUKATT HOUSE, VELIMUKKU AMSOM DESOM, PO VELIMUKKU SOUTH, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. PATTARUKADAVAN SAFIYA AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.KOMUKUTTY, PAYANINGAL HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM, PO PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MUBEENA, MINOR 11 YEARS, D/O.PATTARUKADAVAN SAFIYA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.KOMUKUTTY,PAYANINGAL HOUSE,PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM,PO PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MUFAD, MINOR 5 YEARS, S/O.PATTARUKADAVAN SAFIYA AGAED 27 YEARS, D/O.KOMUKUTTY, PAYANINGAL HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM, PO PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.(MINOR RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ARE REP.BY THEIR MOTHER & NEXT FRIEND THE 1ST RESP.) ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.HARISH R. MENON FOR R1 TO 3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.67 of 2005 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.341 of 2002 to the extent it concerned respondent No.1, wife of petitioner. As per the impugned order petitioner is directed to pay maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. It is contended that the order under challenge is not legal or proper. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 15.9.1991. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are born in that wedlock. To them court below awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- each per month which is not under challenge. Respondent No.1 alleged that petitioner subjected her to harassment and cruelty. In the meantime petitioner went abroad. Respondent N.1 stated that petitioner was abroad for sometime. According to the petitioner, it was during that time that respondent No.1 had been to that place for performing Haj. According to respondent No.1, during that time she conceived. Petitioner wanted her to abort it but she refused. Later, she returned to her native place. It is also her case that as insisted and pressurized by the petitioner she had to meet a doctor who aborted her pregnancy against her will. Petitioner denied the allegations and alleged that respondent No.1 had some extra marital relationship. He denied that he is having any income as contended RP(FC)No.67/2005 2 by respondent No.1. In the court below respondent No.1 gave evidence as PW1. Petitioner adduced evidence through his power of attorney holder, RW1. Court below found that respondent No.1 has justifiable reasons to live separately and claim maintenance. That finding is under challenge in this revision. 3. So far as entitlement of respondent No.1 to live separately is concerned, she has given evidence about alleged harassment and cruelty. Petitioner has not entered the box, may be because he was working abroad. There is no effective contra evidence for the version of respondent No.1. Moreover, petitioner was also not able to prove or probabilise his allegation regarding the extra marital connections of respondent No.1. Therefore respondent No.1 is entitled to separate residence and maintenance. 4. So far as amount awarded to respondent No.1 is concerned, it is not disputed that petitioner was working abroad even during the time court below disposed of the petition. Respondent No.1 was aged 26 years at the time of filing of application in the year, 2002. Petitioner then was aged 30 years. It is not his case that he is physically or mentally disabled from earning. Considering these circumstances I am not inclined to think that sum of Rs.1,000/- awarded to respondent No.1 is beyond his reach. Nor is it excessive for maintenance of a lady aged 26 years. There is no merit in this revision petition. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks