IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 69 of 2004() --------------------- MC.310/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- KALIPARAMBAN BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. MOOLAN KORAN, ELECTRICIAN, KAVULLAVALAPPIL, CHERIKKAL, PINARAYI P.O. BY ADV. MR.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- 1. CHOYAN MALATHI, W/O. K.BALAKRISHNAN, KUNDERI KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KADIROOR AMSOM, PULLIOD DESOM, P.O. UMMENCHIRA, THALASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A.SALIM FOR R2 ADV. MR.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P(F.C)No. 69 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kannur in M.C. 310/2003. It is an application filed for maintenance by the wife against the husband and the court below directed the husband to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards maintenance. The couple got married in the year 2001 November and the husband has neglected to maintain her and therefore she is entitled to claim maintenance. Husband would contend that at the time of their marriage the previous marriage of the petitioner was in subsistence and so there was an invalid marriage and further she was suffering from insanity. Therefore he has filed an application for declaration of the marriage as null and void under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court below found against the revision petitioner and ordered to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/-. It is against that decision the revision petitioner has come up in revision. 2. Admittedly the marriage had taken place on 4.11.2001. R.P(F.C) 69/2004 -2- The first ground of attack is that there was another marriage subsisting at the time of the marriage and so she is not a legally wedded wife. But the said contention was repelled by the court below on the ground that Ext. P1 clearly established that the previous marriage had been put an end to by filing a petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act. So the contention is rightly repelled by the court below. 3. The next question is regarding the ground of insanity. The court below has considered this question also in a detailed manner. The revision petitioner has admitted in his examination that prior to his marriage he had conducted sufficient enquires and that he had gone to the house of the petitioner to see her. He had also deposed that one Sreeja who is his near relative had come with a proposal and that Sreeja knew the lady for so many years. The court also found that on examination of PW1 it is seen that she was able to give concrete and clear answers in the cross examination very well. Only a piece of evidence is that there is an admission by her to the effect that she had been treated by a Psychiatrist. The mere consultation with a R.P(F.C) 69/2004 -3- Psychiatrist or taking some medicine cannot take us to a conclusion that she was mentally ill at the time of marriage and thereafter. So the court correctly did not accept that piece of evidence at all and such an answer to a question would clearly establish that she is a truthful witness also. So the materials relied on by the court below for arriving at a decision is not vitiated by any illegality or irregularity and there is no scope for interference. The court below has ordered only a reasonable amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application which also does not call for any interference. Therefore the R.P.(F.C) is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm