IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 290 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.79/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVN.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT.: ----------------------------------------------- GANGADHARA RAO, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE ANANDA, RESIDING AT KALPAVTIKSHA, POST RD NAGAR, KASARAGOD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- SNEHALATHA, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.RATNAKARA RAO, RESIDING AT SANTHOSH NIVAS, P.O.BAKAL, HOSDURG TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.290 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of August 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.79 of 2008 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent, his wife at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. It is not disputed that petitioner married respondent on 04-04-2007 and that even before respondent claimed maintenance parties are living separately. According to the respondent, petitioner had subjected her to cruelty and harassment. She stated that a few days after marriage she was taken to Chennai where petitioner was working, she could stay with the petitioner only for 29 days. She alleged that petitioner had illicit affair with the widow of his elder brother. On account of alleged ill-treatment she had to withdraw from her company. Respondent stayed in the matrimonial home for some time. On account of ill-treatment of in-laws she had to withdraw from there also. Petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that respondent was behaving abnormally. She was taken to a Physician who advised petitioner to keep away from the company of respondent. He claimed that he was cheated. He also filed a petition for declaration of marriage as null and void. Learned counsel submitted that the petition is still pending consideration. Petitioner does not want the company of respondent. As on record petitioner R.P.F.C.No.290 of 2009 2 was not able to prove the allegation of mental abnormality for respondent. Question whether petitioner is entitled to get declaration of nullity of marriage is to be decided in the petition which is still pending consideration of the court below. But respondent cannot be asked dot starve till that case is finally decided in her favour. Petitioner has to maintain the respondent. it ultimately petitioner is successful in getting the declaration he has ample remedy under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In these circumstances she is entitled to separate residence and maintenance. 2. So far as maintenance awarded by the court below is concerned, it is not disputed that petitioner is working in a courier company and is otherwise able bodied and capable of earning. What is awarded to the respondent who was aged 27 years at the time of making the application is only Rs.1500/- per month which by no means can be said to be excessive requiring interference at the instance of petitioner. I find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge at the instance of petitioner. Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/