IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.NO. 284 OF 2009() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/06/2008 IN OP 11/08 & MC 21/08 IN MC.21/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER - RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- SHINU, S/O. MATHAI @ MATHEW AGED 30 YEARS, EDIKKAT VEEDU, ELAMPILAKKODE, AKAMPADAM P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S) - PETITIONER & STATE: --------------------------------------------------- 1. SHERIL AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. ULAHANNAN, MUNDANCHIRA VEEDU, VELLIMITTAM PATHA P.O., POTHUKALLU, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(FC) NO.284 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard both sides. 2. Order under challenge is passed by the Family Court, Malappuram granting maintenance to respondent No.1, wife of petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. It is admitted that petitioner married respondent No.1 on 18.1.2007. She claimed that petitioner subjected her to cruelty and harassment and neglected to maintain her from 15.10.2007 onwards. According to respondent No.1, petitioner is a building contractor earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Petitioner contended that respondent No.1 has left the matrimonial home on her own and refused to come back. He also claimed that respondent No.1 is earning Rs.3,000/- per month from tailoring and coolie work and that himself is a coolie earning at Rs.75/- per day. Court below after consideration of the evidence found that respondent No.1 is entitled to separate residence and maintenance. It is contended that respondent No.1 has no reason to stay away and that the amount awarded is excessive 3. Respondent No.1 has given evidence regarding cruelty and harassment as pleaded by her. It is admitted that on the complaint of respondent No.1, petitioner is facing prosecution under Section 498A R.P(FC) No.284 of 2009 -: 2 :- of the Indian Penal Code. Court below after consideration of the evidence found in favour of the allegation of cruelty and harassment made on petitioner by respondent No1. That finding rested on a proper appreciation of evidence let in by the parties and I do not find reason to interfere. 4. Amount awarded in favour of respondent No.1 is Rs.2,000/- per month. It is contended that petitioner is a coolie by occupation getting only Rs.75/- per day. That version of petitioner was not accepted by the court below. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 is earning Rs.3,000/- per month from tailoring and coolie work. But there is no evidence for that. Court below observed that petitioner himself admitted that he is able bodied and capable of doing any work. Petitioner admitted that he has the capacity to maintain his wife. In these circumstances the sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded in favour of respondent No.1 cannot be said to be excessive. Court below has taken into account the basic needs of respondent No.1 who was aged 25 years at the time of making the application for maintenance. There is no reason to interfere in that regard as well. There is no merit in the revision and is only to be dismissed. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv