IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 453 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.311/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER: 1ST PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- K.E. JAYANTHI, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRAN NAIR, 'JAYANTHI NIVAS', P.O. NEELESWARAM, NEELESWARAM AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.A.K.RANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- A. MANOJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, MANKUDI POTTAMMAL HOUSE, P.O. KAYALAM, VIA. MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE-673526. ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 453 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.311/04. The Family Court granted maintenance to the child and declined to grant maintenance to the wife and it is against the dis-allowance of maintenance to the wife, she has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent and perused the documents. The Family Court most probably was carried away by the statement of the wife in the box that she is not prepared to join the husband and therefore declined to grant maintenance to her. I had read the chief examination as well as he objection and the averments are innumerable in number on which if there is any truth, the wife will be entitled to live separately. One has also to be conscious about the fact that harassment or ill treatment between the husband and wife R.P.(F.C.) NO. 453 OF 2007 -:2:- does not take place in public and one may not get corroborative evidence in all those aspects. It is the surrounding circumstances that will always give a hint to the Court regarding the alleged act of cruelty. I find though there was a very long affidavit in chief examination the allegations made in the chief examination are not attempted to be contradicted in cross examination but in the affidavit filed by the husband he had denied all these things. So this Court cannot categorically say that there is no challenge against the averments just because it is not put in the cross examination of the petitioner. The innumerable number of instances iterated and reiterated only reveal that all was not well in the matrimonial home. Who is responsible and whether such an incident had taken place are all matters which are to be proved by at least some evidence. Therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity for the wife to adduce better evidence in support of her contentions and direct the Family Court to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. Needless R.P.(F.C.) NO. 453 OF 2007 -:3:- to say respondent is also permitted to adduce and produce evidence. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 16.4.2010. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-