IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 177 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.174/2006 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ C.ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. CHEKKUTTY, CHITTALI HOUSE, KORAD, OZHUR, THROUGH POWER HOLDER BEERAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------- SAKEENA, D/O. CHEKKUTTY, VALIYAKATH MALIYEKKAL, P.O.CHALIYAM, RESIDING AT KADALUNDI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB FOR R.1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 177 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.174/06. The Family Court ordered a maintenance of Rs.3000/- and aggrieved by the same the husband has come up in revision challenging the very necessity to grant maintenance and secondly the quantum. Admittedly the petitioner before the Court below is the second wife of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has his first wife and four children. It is submitted by the wife that she did not know about the first marriage and therefore she had married him and so she is not in a position to go and stay with them. 2. On the other hand the husband would contend that she was fully aware of his first marriage and only after enquiry it had been performed. It can be seen that this wife had not gone and stayed with the first wife and children. Under ordinary set up and circumstances no two wives of the same R.P.(F.C.) NO. 177 OF 2007 -:2:- man will stay in the same house inviting trouble to both of them. So there is some thing which makes the wife to live separately and therefore I do not want to interfere with the finding of the Court below that the wife is entitled to live separately. 3. The next is regarding the quantum. It is very interesting to note that the power of attorney holder of the husband who is the brother of the first wife would depose before Court that he had gone for the fixation of 2nd marriage. It is very difficult to accept such evidence. The evidence of that witness also would reveal that the revision petitioner is having a house and he is conversant and well looking after his first wife and 4 children as sufficient income for him. 4. On the other hand it can also be seen that though two of wife's brothers are abroad no documents are attempted to be produced to show the income of the wife. One side would say that there is much income and the other side would say there is no income. But the facts remain that at that point of time he was in gulf country and it has also come out in R.P.(F.C.) NO. 177 OF 2007 -:3:- evidence that he was able to construct a good house. All these things would reveal that he is not a man without any means and further there is capacity for him and so has has married for the 2nd time. It is his legal as well as moral responsibility to look after this wife also. In the absence of cogent materials to fix the income I think interest of justice can be met by directing the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,250/- to the wife from the date of petition. 5. In the result the revision is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,250/- payable from the date of petition. Any amount paid would be given credit to and the balance need to be paid. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-