IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 40 of 2009() ------------------------- MC.143/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER (S): RESPONDENT IN THE MC: -------------------------------------------------- JAYARAJAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.PATTAYIL APPUNNI, 'NAVAJYOTHI', POTTAKKAD ROAD, NALLOOR, FEROKE POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SMT.MANJU.R.KARTHA RESPONDENT(S): 1ST PETITIONER IN MC: ------------------------------------------------- HYMAVATHI, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.AMBILI RAMAN, CHAKKODI HOUSE, KADALUNDI POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 40 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.143/07. The husband and wife are fighting and litigations are there for restitution of conjugal rights, return of gold ornaments and also for maintenance. The wife apprehends that if she joins the husband her life will be in peril and therefore does not want to live with the husband. Since the other cases are still in the process of appellate stage I do not want to elaborate on the points for the reason that it may affect the petitioner materially in those cases. So the short point I would like to consider is whether there is a reasonable ground for the wife to live separately from the husband. 2. The learned Family Court Judge had referred to this aspect in paragraph 15 wherein a letter written by the husband is referred to and quoted. The learned counsel for the petitioner in fairness gave me a copy of the entire letter. R.P(F.C.) NO. 40 OF 2009 -:2:- The said letter is having two compartments. One compartment is the desire of the husband to have a fruitful family life and the other is the anguish which the husband has and the words used are really very hard. In two or three places reference is made with respect to putting an end to the life and naturally any wife will be scared when such letters are written. So all is not well and a calm atmosphere is not possible and when there is a threat accompanied by apprehension for the wife regarding her safety Courts of law may not be justified in treating it in a light hearted manner. I do not want to elaborate on it further because I am convinced that there is reasonable ground for the wife to live separately. 3. The next thing is about the quantum. The Family Court has ordered a maintenance of Rs.1,500/-. The husband is a healthy man and is bound to maintain his wife. By any stretch of imagination an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month now can never be said to be arbitrary fixing and it is the minimum amount that has to be awarded. So the R.P(F.C.) NO. 40 OF 2009 -:3:- quantum also does not require any interference. Therefore the R.P. is dismissed. I make it clear that any finding on this shall not affect the merit of the case in the other two appeals proposed to be filed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-