IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 18 of 2005() ---------------------------- MC.582/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. ................................. REVISION PETITION/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------- V.V.PRAMOD, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.V.V.KAMALAKSHI, MADATHIL HOUSE, NOONHERI, MUNDERI KADAVU, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANIL SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------- SARITHA P., D/O.K.P.MOHANAN, AGED 20 YEARS, KOLEMKADA HOUSE, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, NEAR CHIRAKKAL CHIRA, KANNUR. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.F.C.No.18 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the family court, Kannur in M.C.582/03. The wife moved the application for maintenance against the husband and the court has granted an order of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the wife from the date of order. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Perused the records. 3. The unfortunate couple got married on 1.6.2003 and admittedly got separated from 16.6.2003 and there after the husband had not gone to the wife at all. The husband had admitted in his evidence without assigning any reason he has put back the wife in her house. According to the husband there was a suppression of material facts regarding the mental disorder of the wife and therefore, he had moved the petition before the Family Court for declaring the marriage as null and void under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is still pending and on the other hand, the wife contend that she is absolutely fit and there had been sexual relationship and the husband had unnecessarily put her back in her house. Mere RPFC.18/05 2 filing a petition for annulment of a marriage would not discharge the burden regarding fraud. There is no evidence tendered worth acceptable to prove mental disorder of the wife. In the cross examination the husband had admitted that he had interviewed the wife and put questions to her and thereafter had married her. So prima facie materials are not in favour of the husband. If a declaration of nullity of marriage is obtained, certainly law envisages relief by moving application under section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code to cancel the order. But in this case, at this stage entitles the wife to get maintenance. 4. Husband has admitted that at least he is working in a jewelery. The quantum of maintenance ordered is only Rs.1,000/-. It cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore the quantum also does not call for any interference. 5. In the result, revision petition lacks merit and hence dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE sou.