IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 104 of 2008() ----------------------------------- MC.526/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONERS-RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- KAMALUDEEN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, PALLIYALIL HOUSE,VADAKKANGARA PO VADAKKANGARA AMSOM, DESOM,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SMT.A.LOWSY. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- JUMAILA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. KUNHIMOIDU, MOONUKANDATHIL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA P.O., VADAKKANGARA AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.3700/2008 IN RP(FC)NO.104/2008 DISMISSED 4/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.104 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.No.526/2007. This case picturises loss of moral values in the society and how the provisions of law are circumvented ultimately leading to personal gains. I say so for the reason that it was a case of love or it was a case of forcible sexual intercourse and ultimately the man got into trouble by registration of a crime under Section 376 of the I.P.C. Then, in order to get over the situation, it appears that the parties have compromised the matter and moved a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings under Section 376 on the ground that the man has married the victim and thus put an end to the same getting a clean chit. Thereafter the husband would contend that the wife insisted that he should go and reside in her house for which he was not prepared and it is submitted that after mediation talaq has been pronounced putting an end to the marriage. The man : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.104 OF 2008 had married another lady and is living with her. So he is free from the criminal case and now the lady is knocking at the doors of the court for justice. It is in this background the contention of pronouncement of talaq was considered by the court below. Two alleged mediators, RWs 2 and 3 were examined. A reading of the evidence of RWs 2 and 3 would show that they had no consideration for keeping the matrimonial relationship united. Neither the husband nor the wife was a party to the alleged mediation. None of them were consulted also. It is just stated that in the residence of RW2 a meeting was called where these people participated and father of the wife was also in the said assembly. The dispute was whether the husband should go to the house of the wife or not. It is submitted that when it was stated that it was not possible, an advice was given to pronounce the talaq. It has to be remembered that the will and pleasure of the parties were not exchanged in the discussion. What was the reasonable cause for separation also did not come up for consideration. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that mediation means pertaining to subsistence : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.104 OF 2008 of the matrimonial relationship and not for an advice to pronounce talaq. The matrimonial harmony is not only the subject matter of two individuals but the society concerned and that is why the Apex Court held that there should be a real talk and mediation to compromise the matter and only when it goes out to such an extent, the question of pronouncement of talaq arises. 2. Here neither the husband nor the wife is consulted. Therefore, the views are not obtained. Some people gathered together and decided that the method is to pronounce talaq. So,I have no hesitation to hold that the methodology adopted is absolutely against the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court and so it has to be held that it cannot be considered as a valid pronouncement of the talaq. 3. Now turning to the quantum. The misery which the wife had undergone is evident. The husband is working abroad and he had married another lady and is living comfortably there. It is the paramount duty of the husband to maintain his first wife. It is submitted that he is in India now, what ever it may be, he is the person who is : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.104 OF 2008 capable of looking after the second wife. It is his duty to look after the first wife. He has also stated in examination that the amount of Rs.2,000/= claimed as maintenance per month does not appear to be excessive and beyond the capacity of the husband to spare. When it is so, the quantum also does not call for any interference. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.104 OF 2008