IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 317 of 2007() ------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN ORDER IN MC.141/2005 DATED 13/04/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 1. SHINI N.R., AGED 29 YEARS, W/O MANOJ P.V., NIRAPPEL HOUSE, BALANTHODE P.O., PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. SIVA PRASAD, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O SHINI, NIRAPPEL HOUSE, BALANTHODE P.O., PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. (MINOR REPRESETED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER) BY ADV. MR.M.SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT MANOJ P.V., S/O VASUDEVAN, PUNNATHANATH HOUSE, IRITTY,P.O. VILAMANA, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON 05/03/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: nl. M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ====================== R.P.(F.C) No.317 OF 2007 ====================== Dated this the 5th day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This revision is preferred against the order of Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C. 141/2005 whereby the court declined maintenance to the wife. The dissatisfied wife had come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel appearing on both sides. 3. A perusal of the order of the Family Court would convincingly establish that the husband always wanted reunion and document Ext.B1 to B4 revealed the attempt for reconciliation and it is also stated that the evidence of RW2 and RW3 also indicates the attempted reconciliation. The parties were living happily after marriage and the lady had gone for delivery and returned back to the matrimonial home. Thereafter it is submitted that there was dowry harassment. According to her, her father was informed over over phone and wanted to be taken back. Even her father R.P.(F.C) No.317 OF 2007 2 was not examined to prove the factum of cruelty. The Family Court which had the privilege of watching the witness and noting the demanour had relied upon the evidence of the husband rather than that of the wife. It is also to be stated that the wife is a better qualified person, post graduate in Commerce with Computerisation, whereas the husband is only a person who had not even completed graduation. He is working as a Manager in petrol bunk. So the court felt that there is notable inequality in status. When attempts were made to get her back she had refused to join and therefore the Family Court correctly found that she has no reason to live separately. Therefore, I decline to interfere with the order of the Family Court. Still I feel that the well wishers can make an attempt for rejoining of the couple as it appears possible and there is no such wide gap which cannot be filled. This revision is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns