IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 427 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.126/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- V.SREEKUMAR, S/O.LATE KIZHAKKEPATT SANAKAN MENON, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT VARIYATHODI, USHAAS P.O. SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- M.KALA, D/O.LATE PAGATH KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS, MUTHUTHODI HOUSE, P.O.AMBALAPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 427 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.126/06. The case for maintenance was filed by the wife against the husband and the Court granted a maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month payable from the date of petition. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. The unfortunate couple got married and their matrimonial relationship did not have a long tenure. It is unfortunate that in our society frequent rapid separation is coming up for consideration which will in the long process affect the society as such. 3. The wife would contend that the life in the matrimonial home was very uncomfortable and the husband as well as the members of the family had ill treated her and that is why she is living separately. The husband did not R.P.(F.C.) NO. 427 OF 2007 -:2:- properly let in any evidence on his behalf and even then the Family Court was inclined to grant time. He did not appear on the day even to prosecute such petitions which ultimately made the Family Court to dispose of the matter with the available evidence. So the evidence of PW1 in this regard speaks about the cause of her separate living. So one cannot hold that she is living separately without any reasonable cause. So she is entitled to maintenance. 4. The next question is regarding the quantum. The wife would allege that the husband is having some school and having large properties, bank accounts besides a DTP centre. Except the factum of DTP centre the Family Court itself opined that there are absolutely no materials to prove the same. The Court also found that there is no evidence to show that the wife was having any source of income. Now in the absence of any material evidence only a reasonable guess can be made and the guess made by the Family Court is Rs.2,000/-. One does not know what is the income from the DTP centre and it is not situated in a city. So I have to depend on my own R.P.(F.C.) NO. 427 OF 2007 -:3:- guess to arrive at a decision and to do justice to both the parties. I feel the quantum of maintenance can be fixed at Rs.1,500/- so that the husband will be able to pay at least the same and the wife can receive the same. Therefore the revision petition is partly allowed by modifying the order of maintenance payable to the wife from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,500/- that too payable from the date of petition. The amount in deposit shall be withdrawn by the wife and that can be also given credit to towards the amount payable by the husband. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-