IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 3 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2007 IN OP. 206 /2006 IN MC.113/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT:RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ P.G.SURESH BABU,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN, “VISHNU PRIYA”,EDAKKADU POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI, MR.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ, SMT.SUSAN JACOB, MR.B.PREMNATH (E), MR.MANJERI SUBIN SUNDER RAJ. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. B.P.SHEETHA,AGED 34 YEARS, D/O. PRUSHOTHAMAN, BIYATHU HOUSE, AARAKKULAM WEST,KODUNGALLUR POOST, THRISSUR. 2. SHAGIL, AGED 14 YEARS, (MINOR) 3. AATHIRA, AGED 8 YEARS, (MINOR) RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 REP. BY IST RESPONDENT AS MOTHER/GUARDIAN R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.113/2010 IN RP(FC) NO.3/2010 CLOSED 29/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.3 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.No.113/2006. The wife and the two children moved an application for maintenance against the revision petitioner and the family court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/= to the wife, Rs.1,000/= to the first child and Rs.750/= to the second child. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. The unfortunate couple at a belated stage in the matrimonial life had started fighting and from 2005 onwards they are living separately. The wife moved an application for divorce which has been dismissed by the trial court against which a matrimonial appeal is pending before this Court. Therefore I am not touching those aspects at all. 3. Here the two questions to be considered are whether the wife is entitled to live separately and whether : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.3 OF 2010 the respondents are entitled to get maintenance. According to the husband, the wife has inflicted cruelty on him and therefore, he is not bound to maintain her. The wife on the other hand would contend that the husband had a very suspicious character and he used to suspect her even when she speaks with the milkman or vegetable vendor. Though in the counter statement it is stoutly denied, in the very next paragraph the husband has attributed charge of adultery on the wife with a neighbour. The question of adultery is not proved. There cannot be any better form of cruelty than that. Therefore I find that the wife is entitled to live separately with the children. 4. Now turning to the quantum. The revision petitioner is working as a technical assistant in the Central Warehousing Corporation. According to the wife, his monthly income is Rs.15,000/= whereas, according to the husband, it is only Rs.12,000/=. Though it is contended that the wife has got income and properties, in cross examination it has been admitted by him that she is not having any job or having any property in her name. So the wife is not having any : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.3 OF 2010 resources at all. Taking into consideration the fact that the husband also should have a decent living, I feel that little leniency can be shown by reducing the maintenance to the wife from Rs.1,500/= to Rs.1,300/= and by retaining the maintenance to the children together at Rs.1,750/= as ordered by the family court. 5. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of by refixing the quantum of maintenance to the wife at Rs.1,300/= and by retaining the maintenance of the 1st child at Rs.1,000/= and the 2nd child at Rs.750/= per month payable from the date of order. The mother can receive the amount on behalf of the minors. If any amount is paid or deposited, that shall be given credit to. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.3 OF 2010