IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 362 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.99/2007 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- RAJU T.K., S/O.KUTTAPPAN, THUDYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ONAKKUR, KAKAYAM, PERIYAPPURAM P.O., PIRAVOM VIA., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.S.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/STATE ------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJIMOL C.D., W/O.RAJU T.K., CHERUVALLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEMURY KARA, PAMPAKUDA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. NANDAGOPAN, AGED 6 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY HIS MOTHER, RAJIMOL C.D., W/O.RAJU T.K., CHERUVALLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEMURY KARA, PAMPAKUDA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.SUNU P.JOHN. R3 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.BENNY VARGHESE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 362 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.MA.NO.9392/2009 IN RPFC NO.362/2009 DISMISSED 17/02/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.99/07. The wife and minor child aged 6 years had claimed maintenance against respondent therein and the Family Court awarded a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the wife and Rs.900/- to the child payable from 29.3.07. It is challenging the same the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel. The revision memorandum would reveal that the challenge is regarding (1) the reason to live separately and (2) regarding the quantum. The unfortunate couple got married in the year 1999 and when the ordinary wear and tear of the matrimonial life became very serious the wife left the matrimonial home and had claimed maintenance. The wife would contend that the husband is a drunkard and he comes fully drunk and assaults her habitually. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 OF 2009 -:2:- It made her life miserable. On one such occasion she went away and subsequent to the intervention of mediators she came back and started living in a shed along with her husband which is adjacent to the house of the husband. Within four months again the difference of opinion widened and according to the wife she was mercilessly beaten and send out of the house in 2002. 3. On the other hand the husband would contend that he has got his parents and the wife does not want to live in a remote area wherein his house is situated and further she never wanted to look after the parents of the husband. PW2 is the brother of wife's father and PW3 is her aunt. Both of them had deposed before court that the husband used to drink and ill-treat the wife and on account of that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and she is not being looked after. They had also stated there is no income for the wife and the child is sick as well. So the evidence on an analysis would reveal that little more of corroboration is there on the version of the wife rather than that of the husband. It is also to be stated that normally ladies do not go to a court of law R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 OF 2009 -:3:- immediately after separation for the reason they may hope that wisdom will prevail and the matrimonial tie will again will be strengthened. Just because the wife has not filed an application for maintenance earlier one cannot hold that there is no reason to live separately, especially in our society tolerance of ladies is high and it is a special character of this great nation. Therefore I find that the wife is living separately from the husband only on account of valid reasons and therefore she is entitled to claim maintenance. 4. The next question is regarding the quantum of maintenance. The wife would contend that the husband is running a workshop and derives a substantial income whereas the husband would depose that he is only a coolie having a daily income of Rs.100/-. He would also contend in evidence that the wife is now working in a computer institution and derives a sum of Rs.3,000/-. When the question of income comes to him he wants to project as if he has nothing but the at the same time he wants to make the court believe that the wife is having better income. PWs.2 and 3 had spoken about the fact that the wife is not having any income at all. But it R.P.(F.C.) NO. 362 OF 2009 -:4:- has to be stated there is nothing on record to prove that the husband is running a workshop. So there is no data worth available to fix the quantum of the husband's income. But the husband is an young and healthy man and is capable of doing work. So taking into consideration those aspects I feel that a little reduction in the quantum of maintenance has to be granted in the absence of positive evidence to prove at least the average income of the husband. I modify the order of maintenance by reducing the quantum of maintenance to the wife to Rs.900/- and that of the child to Rs.700/-. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of modifying the order of maintenance by fixing the maintenance of the wife at Rs.900/- and that of the child at Rs.700/- and both payable from 29.3.07. The mother is entitled to draw the maintenance on behalf of the child. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-