IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 22 of 2007() --------------------- MC.13/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- 1. AYSHATHA THAHIRA, W/O. MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, D/O. MOOSA KAKKALAM. 2. ABDUL MASHOOD, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA. 3. MOHAMMED MUSHAB, AGED 1 ½ YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA. (PETITIONERS 2 TO 3 ARE MINORS REP.BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST REVISION PETITIONER). ALL ARE RESIDING AT BAIKKATTA, KIDOOR (P.O), KUMBLA, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT). BY ADV. MR.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, S/O. ANDUMEN, SHERIEF MANZIL, BELA, NEERCHAL, KASARAGOD TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 22 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.13/06. The revision petitioners moved for maintenance against the husband and also the father of counter petitioners 2 and 3. The unfortunate couple got married on 15.10.2001 and it had resulted in the birth of two children in the wedlock. Now the matrimonial fabric has come to an end and the wife and children had moved the Court for maintenance. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband is a business man by profession and he is bound to maintain them by making a payment of Rs.1,500/- to the first petitioner and Rs.1,000/- each to the other petitioners. On the other hand the respondent would contend that he is only a driver by profession that too a casual driver and the wife had left the matrimonial home on her on accord and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. In the Court below PW1 and RWs.1 R.P.(F.C.) NO. 22 OF 2007 -:2:- and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. The Court awarded a maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- to the 2nd petitioner and at the rate of Rs.500/- to the third petitioner and disallowed the maintenance for the first petitioner. It is against this order the revision petition is preferred. 3. The learned Family Court Judge found that the evidence of the wife is not satisfactory and it felt that the wife is living separately without any valid reason and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. According to the wife she was given in marriage a sum of Rs.1½ lakhs and 75 sovereigns of gold and there was consistent demand for dowry and ultimately on 26.10.2005 the husband along with his parents and sister and brother-in-law manhandled her and driven her out of the matrimonial home. The husband would contend that while he was away in connection with his duty as a driver, on 19.10.2005 the wife had left the matrimonial home for the reason that she was not prepared to look after the parents of R.P.(F.C.) NO. 22 OF 2007 -:3:- the respondents. Further in this matter the evidence is oral and some documentary evidence produced on the side of the husband. The evidence of the wife appears to be inconsistent in very many aspects. 4. At the out set I may like to state that her case that the sister has beaten her on 26.10.2005 stands disproved by the production of Ext.B3 document which indicates that she had returned from gulf country only on 31.10.2005. It is in this back ground this has to be understood that as RW2, sister had deposed that the parents were in her house looking after her children. Similarly it has also to be stated that the petition would show that on 19.10.2005 she had initiated a complaint against the husband and it is very difficult to believe that the wife going to the police station and files a complaint, then comes back and stays with the husband. She has no case that in between 9.10.2005 and 26.10.2005 there has been any talk for compromise so as to return the matrimonial home. So the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 22 OF 2007 -:4:- evidence of PW1 as correctly analysed by the Family Court appears to be truthful and that the husband would contend that when he was away she had left the matrimonial home. Therefore the wife has not succeeded in proving that she had got a reasonable ground to live separately. Therefore rejection of grant of maintenance to the first petitioner cannot be interfered with as it is not based on a finding that has to be interfered with in revision. 5. So far as the quantum is concerned in the petition it is alleged that he is a business man whereas he would contend that he is only a driver. It is too interesting to note that the petitioner would depose that he is doing sandal wood business. Nobody can do sandal wood business unless there are licence or permission from the Government. So the case of the respondent appears to be more probable. When he is working as a driver considering the age of children at 3 and 1½ years at the time of filing of the petition the Court below has awarded a reasonable amount R.P.(F.C.) NO. 22 OF 2007 -:5:- of Rs.750/- to the first child and Rs.500/- to the 2nd child and as age progresses and if circumstances warrants there will not be any bar u/s 127 for claiming enhancement of maintenance. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court Judge and hence the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-