IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 388 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.152/2007 of Family Court, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ KAVITHA, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. SREEDHARAN, "KARTHIKA" FACT NAGAR ROAD, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERANKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JOYTHILAL, K.U.AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. P.K.UNNI, KAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM P.O., KOOTAYAM, RESIDING AT MANATTU VEEDU (KAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE) CORPORATION ROAD, VALUNNEL ROAD (VIA) NEAR GOT. COLLEGE, TRIPUNITHURA. ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 388 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred by the wife whose claim for maintenance has been disallowed by the Court and restricting it to the maintenance to the child by directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner very persuasively contend before me that the approach of the Family Court is totally erroneous and therefore the order requires interference. There is only an oath against oath available in this case. So the matter has to be decided upon the intrinsic reliability and inherent probability and acceptability of the evidence of the parties. It is in this back drop I wish to analyse the evidence before Court. 3. The wife had filed an affidavit in lieu of the chief examination and she has been cross examined. The parties got married on 4.2.99. It can be seen that the averment is R.P(F.C.) NO. 388 OF 2009 -:2:- that immediately after the marriage the members of the husband's family had deprived her of her gold ornaments. It is very difficult to believe that immediately on the next day of the marriage all the ornaments except 'thali' was taken away from the wife. It shows to what extend the petitioner would depose in the matters. 4. The main grievance would appear that she was under the impression that the husband was working as a primary health inspector but to her utter dismay when she found that it was only a temporary employment everything became unfortunate for the parties. The wife does not mind in categorizing the husband as a lazy person to go for any job. Thereafter she becomes pregnant and she would also depose that the father of the petitioner entrusted the son-in- law to look after the business and he was able to get an income of Rs.10,000/-. Then it is stated that the mother and the brother of the husband came and to avoid expenditure for shelter they started living in the house of the father of the petitioner. R.P(F.C.) NO. 388 OF 2009 -:3:- 5. The next grievance appears to be that the husband was always under the beck and call of the mother. It would appear that the wife felt that the husband needed permission of the mother to talk to her. So these three instances I have extracted just to pin point that it is in the form of a tailored evidence which cannot be accepted by a competent Court of law. We find realities in life but they are never so tailored in this fashion. So when confronted with these things in cross examination she would admit that the marriage has taken place about 10 years back and that the husband had approached the SNDP for the purpose of resuming cohabitation and ultimately he moved an application for divorce and thereafter only the wife had set the law in motion for getting maintenance. So it is very clear that the husband wanted wife's company and he had knocked at the doors of the community and when everything failed he moved an application for divorce. It is very difficult to believe that the mother of the husband would have always stayed with the husband when her own husband is said to be R.P(F.C.) NO. 388 OF 2009 -:4:- laid up with paralysis. This also shows the exaggerated version of the wife. She would also depose that she had never moved any application for restitution nor she had given any complaint against the husband's attitude. It is also admitted by her that without the consent or consideration for the husband she had changed the school of the child as well. It is also her version that there is nothing standing in her way in restarting the C.D. business which was there. It has to be remembered a matrimonial life will not be always with sweet and honey. There will be also bitterness and as stated in so many decisions it has to be accompanied by the ordinary wear and tear. Quarrel among the couples is not a rare one but that all forms part of the matrimonial life and therefore unless there are specific reasons to live separately, to throw it away and live separately cannot be accepted. It is true that a woman's body is not to be used for the sole purpose of procreation of children and that is not the intention behind restitution of conjugal rights. Restitution of a matrimonial life is not only the need of the R.P(F.C.) NO. 388 OF 2009 -:5:- couple but is a wish of the society for the reason that an ideal happy couple contribute much to the society and it will totally prevent disharmony and untoward incidents which will affect generations. Quarrel for quarrel sake cannot be attributed as a proper ground for living separately and therefore taking into consideration those aspects I perfectly agree with the analysis of the Family Court in arriving at the decision that there are no valid grounds for the wife to live separately from the husband. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-