IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 189 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.597/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ MUHAMMED FAISI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.THONIKKARA ABDU, THONIKKARA HOUSE, IRINGATTIRI PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. FATHIMASUHRA, D/O.ILLIKKAL MOIDEEN, AGED 30 YEARS, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, THUVOOR. 2. MOHAMMED MIDILAJ, AGED 12 YEARS, S/O.FATHIMA SUHRA, DO. DO. 3. ABDUL BASID, AGED 9 YEARS, DO. DO. 4. FATHIMA JASEERA, AGED 5 YEARS, DO. DO. (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER IST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1TO4 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ========================== R.P.(F.C) No. 189 of 2006 ========================== Dated this the 17th day of March 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court Malappuram in M.C. 597/2005. The wife and three minor children of the revision petitioner moved an appllication for maintenance and the court has granted order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- to the wife, Rs.600/- to the first child, Rs. 500/- to the second child and Rs.400/- to the 3rd child payable from the date of petition. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. 3. So far as the right to live separately and claim for maintenance is concerned, it is seen that the husband has married another lady and is residing with her. That itself is a sufficient indication of the love lost and no wife can be blamed if she refused to live with the second wife. Therefore that finding does not call for any interference. So far as the quantum is concerned, the revision petitioner is a well versed religious man, he is managing a mosque in his own words and he is attending and taking a leading role in the R.P.(F.C) No. 189 of 2006 2 conduct of all the religious ritualistic ceremonies in the said mahal. Over and above this he is owner of 105 tapping rubber trees. Now a days the faith in religion has enormously increased and people are very liberal in contributing for religious cause. Therefore a reasonable income can always be inferred for such type of people. Here the revision petitioner is a person who had studied lot about religion and certainly he would be aware of the consequences of a man marrying another lady when the religion which he follows makes it manifestly clear that both the wives have to be treated with equanimity and looked after equally. So only after realising that background he had entered into another marriage. All these things indicate that he was confident about the potentiality to maintain two wives and the children. The amount awarded is also extremely reasonable if not on the lower side. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Family Court for the reason that the ordering does not suffer from any illegality, which requires correction under the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore revision is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns