IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 216 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.36/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI. .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------- MUHAMMEDKUTTY, SON OF MAYIN, THALAKKUTTY PARAMBIL VEEDU, VADAKKE KULAMBU, ATHAVANADU, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------- 1. FATHIMA, D/O.MARAKKAR, KOLAMBAN VEETIL, KANHIPPURA, KARIPPOLE, TIRUR TALUK. 2. SALMAN FARIS, MINOR AGED 11 MONTHS, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 216 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.36/05. The wife and child moved for maintenance and the Family Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.750 to the wife and Rs.600/- to the child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel. Learned counsel very strongly contends before me that really there is no reason for the wife to live separately and the husband is prepared to maintain her provided she comes with him. It has come out in evidence that there was some misgivings between the two and when she came back to the matrimonial home she found another lady she is characterized as the first wife of the husband, i.e. the revision petitioner herein. It is true that under law governing the parties one can marry twice or more but the law is more clear that there must be sufficient reason for another R.P.(F.C.) NO. 216 OF 2005 -:2:- marriage and the husband must be totally aware that he has to look after the wives in an equitable manner. When the wife finds another lady there in the matrimonial home it may not be possible for them to live together and that can be found as a genuine reason for living separately. It is contended that he will take back the wife and child. At the time of the cross examination there was no such case and it indicate the reluctance of the husband. Therefore the Family Court found that the wife is entitled to live separately along with the child and claim maintenance and accordingly ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- and Rs.600/- per month which by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore there is no merit in the revision and hence the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-