IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 22 of 2006() --------------------- MC.149/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- ALI AKBAR, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMAD, NABOOTH HOUSE, KEEZHATOOR AMSOM, MULLYAKURSSY DESOM, PATTIKKAD P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SAJNA, D/O.MUHAMMAD, AAKKAPARAMBAN HOUSE, MUKHAMPADY, PATTIKKAD P.O., KEZHATTUR VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. TAJUDHEEN, MINOR, AAKKAPARAMBAN HOUSE, MUKHAMPADY, PATTIKKAD P.O., KEZHATTUR VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. FATHIMATH HUSNA, AAKKAPARAMBAN HOUSE, MUKHAMPADY, PATTIKKAD P.O., KEZHATTUR VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. MUHAMMAD MUSHRAF, MINOR, AAKKAPARAMBAN HOUSE, MUKHAMPADY, PATTIKKAD P.O., KEZHATTUR VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GUARDIAN MOTHER IST PETITIONER REPRESENTS MINOR PETITIONERS. BY ADV.SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.22 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th January, 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.149 of 2005. The wife and three children of the revision petitioner moved application for maintenance and the court below had granted maintenance at Rs.500/- to the wife, Rs.200/- to the first child and Rs.350/- each to the other two children. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel . 3. It is seen that the husband had remarried and he is peacefully living with the second wife. In such a situation this wife cannot have a peaceful life and therefore, she can live separately . There are allegations regarding cruelty and the Family Court found in favour and held that wife is entitled to live separately from the husband. 4. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned counsel would contend before me that the revision petitioner is an epileptic patient and therefore the order is excessive. The wife on the other hand would contend that this man had remarried and is living with his family and on everyday he is seen going in a motorcycle for the sale of fresh fish. Whatever it is Exhibit .D1 would only reveal that he had consulted a doctor at Velloor for Fits. The continuity of treatment is not seen there after 21.10.2002. Therefore, one cannot hold that he is suffering from the same ailment even now. However, the amount of maintenance ordered is the very minimum and therefore this court in revision cannot interfere with the said quantum as well. Therefore, the revision lacks merits and the same is dismissed. M.N.Krishnan, Judge cms