IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 412 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.64/2009 of Family Court, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- MAVUNGAL SIDDIQUE, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN MAVUNGAL, VARANAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KOLATHARA.P.O., CHERUVANNUR VIA, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- 1. PARAVAKKAL FOUSIYA, D/O. BASHEER, PARAVAKKAL HOUSE, AREECHOL, PUTHUR.P.O. KOTTAKKAL VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AHAMMED SHIFARATHU FARHAN, AGED 5 YEARS (MINOR) 3. SHAHADIYA FARHA, 2 YEARS (MINOR) ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1-3 SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) FOR R1-3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 412 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C.64/09. The wife and children moved applications for maintenance and the Family Court has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,750/- to the wife, Rs.650/- to the first child and Rs.400/- to the 2nd child. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had taken me through the entire order. I had also the opportunity to hear the counsel for the respondents and had also gone through the entire evidence for the purpose of just understanding the implications, knowing my limitation as a revisional Court. 3. Now the wife had moved the case on the ground of cruelty of the husband as the reason for separate residence. Now the Family Court had proceeded in a tangent and had picked up sentences from the cross examination of the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 412 OF 2009 -:2:- husband and chief examination of the husband wherein it is stated by the husband that the wife does not want him to look after his parents. The Court opines that when a wife says so it is perfect. I feel the approach of the Family Court is totally erroneous to the basic morality of Indian society. Nobody should say that parents should not be looked after and similarly one should not ignore the wife and children just for the sake of parents. We have to strike a balance and look after both for the reason that they form part and parcel of a unit called 'family'. I do not want to elaborate further for the reason the Family Court has not touched the other aspect and I feel after going through the chief examination of PW1 some more elaboration is necessary regarding the acts of cruelty or the reasons for separate living. The mere omissions to put some questions etc. shall not prejudice the right of the party who is not a well qualified housewife. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the Family Court and remit the case back to the Family Court for further trial after affording equal opportunity to both the sides concerned to produce R.P.(F.C.) NO. 412 OF 2009 -:3:- documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Being a matrimonial dispute relating to maintenance endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties before the Court below. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 1.3.2010. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-