IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 317 of 2008() ------------------------------- MC.85/2007 of THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- 1. PUSHPALATHA, W/O.SIVADASAN, @ SILPA (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, PUSHPALATHA, DO. DO., AGED 29 YEARS, THAZHATHIL VEEDU, NOCHULLI P.O., KUZHALMANAM AMSOM, DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. 2. SILPA (MINOR) REP.BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, PUSHPALATHA, DO. DO. BY ADV.MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- K.SIVADASAN, S/O.LATE KITTA, AGED 35 YEARS, AMBATTU VEEDU, PALLANCHATHANUR AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. R1 BY ADV.MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO.10398/2008 IN RP(FC) NO.317/2008 CLOSED 04/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.317 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No.85/2007. The wife and child moved an application for maintenance against the husband and the family court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/= to the child and declined maintenance to the wife on the ground that there is no reason for her to live separately. It is against that decision, the wife has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would strongly urge before me that the family court had not appreciated the materials properly and therefore failed to grant maintenance to the wife. It is seen from the petition that allegations after allegations are levelled against the husband and ultimately when it came to the question of evidence, the only reason stated is that when she was two months' pregnant, the husband wanted her to get it aborted : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.317 OF 2008 and as she did not co-operate properly and as there was threat from the members of the family making her swallow a pill compulsorily, apprehending danger to her life, she had moved out of the matrimonial home. On the contra, the husband would contend that the wife has been taken to a hospital at Coyalmannam only for the purpose of confirmation of pregnancy and she had left the matrimonial home without any reason. 3. I had meticulously perused the evidence of PW1 in this case. It can be seen from her evidence that she is prepared to make any statement in order to put the husband in difficulties. She would say that after she left the matrimonial home neither the husband nor the members of the family had met her and that she had not been ill treated and what is stated in the petition is incorrect. She would even go to the extent of saying that such a statement is made only to book the husband and the members of the family in criminal proceedings. It shows the attitude of the wife towards the husband. 4. A case regarding attempted abortion also does not stand proved for the reason that at one place she says that : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.317 OF 2008 pill was given and later taken to the hospital. In another place she would say that they visited the doctor and pill was given thereafter. She has no case in the petition also that the husband attempted to make her swallow the pill. Her grievance is that the members of the family caught hold of her and put the pill on her month so as to take it. In spite of that, she continues to remain there for some days. If it was the attitude of the husband towards the wife, certainly the husband would not have taken her to a doctor. The evidence is also very clear to the effect that he had gone and seen the child after the delivery. 5. So a cumulative analysis of the materials would only reveal that the reason stated for separate living is not proved and therefore there is no other valid reason to live separately. The analysis done by the family court appears to be correct and it does not suffer from any infirmity and so the said finding of fact does not require any disturbance. Therefore the revision petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.317 OF 2008 : 5 : R.P.(F.C).No.317 OF 2008