IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 95 of 2009() --------------------- MC.126/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- LATHIEF T.P., S/O.YOUSUP, AGED 31 YEARS, MAVULLAKANDY HOUSE, MURAID, MUTTIKAD, KUTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. MR.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SAKEENA P.P., W/O.LATHEIF, AGED 28 YEARS, SABEENA MANZIL, PEROLE, PATHILAKANDAM, NILESHWAR. 2. FATHIMA SHAHALA SHERIN, AGED 8 YEARS, (2ND RESPONDENT IS A MINOR, REP. BY THE IST RESPONDENT MOTHER AS GUARDIAN). BY ADVS. MR.P.SREEKUMAR MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR). THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.2686/2009 IN RP(FC) NO.95/2009 DISMISSED 17/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.95 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.126/2007. The family court ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/= to the wife and Rs.1,000/= to the child per month respectively payable from the date of petition. It is against that decision, the revision is preferred by the husband challenging the liability as well as the quantum. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents. The family court after going through the evidence of Pw1 felt that she has no case and thereafter on going through the evidence of the respondent/husband felt that there is a case. Now the basic factor to be understood in the case is that here is a husband who suspects that his wife had extra marital relationship with the relative of him. As a great man, he would depose that he has forgiven her. According to him, when the wife submits that she does not have any : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.95 OF 2009 connection with that man any more he accepts the same and decided to forgive her. Under ordinary human conduct, this type of evidence cannot be accepted. Therefore the husband had the seed of suspicion in his mind regarding the chastity of the wife and when such a feeling is entered into the mind of the husband, under ordinary circumstances it develops into hatred culminating rupture of the marital life. This is what had precisely happened. Under such circumstances, the wife cannot afford to live with the husband and so I find that reasons are there to the wife to live separately. 3. Now turning to the quantum. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend before me that, in the counter statement it is admitted that, he was sending an amount of Rs.800/= to the wife and child while he was working abroad. Now he has come back to India and certainly there will be a slash down in the income. He is not a qualified person and now he is not having any job. So he can be only considered as a ordinary person who can offer to do manual labourer. It is true that under the : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.95 OF 2009 present wage set up a manual labourer is also receiving reasonable amount as wages. But whether he can offer to pay Rs.2,500/= per month is a doubtful question. The purport of the legislation under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is to provide maintenance to the wife and child who is not having resources by considering the capacity of the husband to pay on in other words, the necessity and capacity have to be put together and the balance has to be struck off so that the husband is also not put into peril. Taking into consideration this principle in mind and considering the fact that there is a reasonable wage set up in the society, I am inclined to fix the maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- to the wife and Rs.800/= to the child per month thereby reducing a total amount of Rs.500/=. 4. Therefore the revision is partly allowed and the order of maintenance is modified by fixing the maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/= to the wife and Rs.800/= to the child per month payable from the date of petition and the wife is entitled to receive the amount on behalf of the minor. The amount which is in deposit shall be disbursed to the : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.95 OF 2009 petitioners in the MC. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.95 OF 2009