IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 93 of 2006() --------------------------------- MC.372/2003 of THE FMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER (S)/ RESPONDENT: ------------------------- SASIMONY KURUP, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN PILLAI, MEPRASSERIL HOUSE, NJALIBHAGOM MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR MR.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- SARASWATHIAMMA, MEPRASSERIL HOUSE, NJALIBHAGOM MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE. R1 BY ADVS.MR.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY, MR.P.S.VISWANATHA PANICKER. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CM.APPL. 3828/2006 IN RPFC. NO.93/2006 DISMISSED 22/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.No.372/2003. The petitioner before the court below, alleging to be the wife of the counter petitioner therein, moved an application for maintenance of Rs.2,000/=. It has stated that in the wedlock, two children were born and the husband had ill treated her which lead to separate living. The marriage was, according to her, solemnised on 27.6.1989 as per the religious rights and ceremonies of the parties. 2. On the other hand the counter petitioner would admit the relationship and paternity of the two children and living together but denies the existence of a valid marriage and therefore would contend that as she is not the legally wedded wife and that she is not entitled to maintenance. The family court on exhaustive consideration of the materials, both documentary and oral, arrived at a decision that the marriage had taken place and considering the income, granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/= to the : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2006 petitioner therein. It is against that decision, the counter petitioner has come up in revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The crux of the matter depends on the question regarding the marriage and validity of the marriage which alone will entitle the wife to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. PW1 is the petitioner. Ext.A1 is the marriage certificate issued by Sri. Chithiravilasom NSS Karayogam on 9.11.1998 by referring to number 114 of 1989 regarding the marriage between the petitioner and the counter petitioner on 27.6.1989 between 10 a.m and 10.30 a.m. Ext.X1 is the extract of the marriage register where the entry 114 relates to the petitioner and the counter petitioner and the date of marriage is 27.6.1989 and it is seen that both the parties had signed in the column as bride and bride groom. Ext.X3 is regarding the payment of revenue. Ext.A2 is a copy of the petition filed against the revision petitioner before the police. Ext.A3 is the deposition of the counter petitioner in O.S.No.215 of 1997. That document is produced to make it sure that the counter : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2006 petitioner himself has referred to the petitioner as “Bharya” (wife). An analysis of the evidence is also necessary to arrive at a proper decision in the case regarding marriage. PW2 is the person who had proved Ext.A1. It is he who had issued the same. Therefore he refers to page 39 and number 114. Thus, Ext.A1 marriage certificate is issued on the basis of Ext.X1 which is the extract of the marriage register maintained in the ordinary course of the business of the Karayogam. Evidence of Pw2 would clinch that issue. Now I will refer to the evidence of PW4 who is examined by the counter petitioner to prove that the petitioner was having illicit relationship with one Prasannan and at present she is living with that Prasannan. In the cross examination a witness of the counter petitioner would depose that So, the witness examined on behalf of the respondent would depose regarding the marriage of the petitioner with the counter petitioner. PW2 as stated by me earlier had : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2006 proved the document. Now the material document relied on by the counter petitioner is that of RW3. RW3 would depose that he is the Secretary of NSS Karayogam No.288 and in that Karayogam the marriage is not registered. A reading of his evidence would reveal that he knows the counter petitioner from younger days itself but he would depose that he does not know whether the counter petitioner is married or he is having any children. He would also say that he used to go to the house of the counter petitioner frequently but he had not seen any children there. But when he was confronted by showing the son, he had to admit that the child shown is the son of the counter petitioner. So it is very clear that RW3 wants to suppress materials in order to help the counter petitioner. Rightly his evidence stands rejected by the family court. Therefore the documentary evidence - Ext.A1 coupled with the evidence of PW1 and that of RW4 and PW2 would establish that the case spoken to by the petitioner in the MC is more probable and acceptable and therefore I hold that there is no ground to interfere with the said decision of the marriage. : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2006 4. The wife has deposed before the court that the husband treated her with cruelty and that had resulted in her living separately. It has also to be stated that he had attributed even unchastity on the wife and it is his case that she is living with one Prasannan. In such a situation, the court below found that the said story also cannot be believed. When a husband attributes unchastity against the wife, it cannot be tolerated and therefore it also amounts to cruelty which is a ground for separate living. 5. Lastly on the question of quantum. The petitioner as Pw1 would depose that the revision petitioner is writing accounts in a quarry and he is also having dealings with sand. Further, he has got 7 cents of land and he is getting an income of Rs.4,000/=. But the factum of land is not proved and the maintenance ordered is only Rs.1,000/=. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be said to be on the higher side, when the husband is a healthy man, who is bound to look after his wife. 6. Therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the quantum awarded. Whatever amount had been paid is to be : 6 : R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2006 adjusted and the balance is realisable. Therefore the revision petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 7 : R.P.(F.C).No.93 OF 2006