IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 112 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.75/2005 of FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER:COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MADATHIL HOUSE, NEGENCHERY KARA, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ ANITHA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, ARAYAMATTATHIL HOUSE, 200 ACRE KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 112 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thodupuzha in M.C.75/05. The wife had moved an application for maintenance and the Court has ordered to pay a maintenance of Rs.500/-. It is against that decision the husband has moved this revision. 2. It is alleged that the Family Court should have held that she is having sufficient income and that she had relationship with one Soman before the marriage and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. I had perused the order passed by the Family Court. A perusal of the order of the Family Court would reveal that the wife had deposed before Court that the matrimonial life was not happy and there was always a threat to kill her. It is also deposed that the husband and his mother never permitted her to take even food. When a question was put to the wife whether she was prepared to go with the husband and stay with him, the wife R.P.(F.C.) NO. 112 OF 2006 -:2:- categorically stated that she is prepared to accompany the husband. When the same question was put to the husband the husband placed a condition that unless all the cases are withdrawn he will not take her. He did not give this answer on the date when the suggestion was put to him and only gave an answer in the next day which indicated that he was really not interested in the wife. It has also to be stated that the husband had attributed immoral character on the wife contending that the wife had relationship with one Soman in Munnar. Such a contention is not seen raised in the counter petition and therefore the husband is not entitled to deny maintenance to the wife. It has to be remembered that a husband is attributing immorality on the wife. It is the end of it and there cannot be any peaceful matrimonial life thereafter. Therefore the ground to live separately stands established. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned the document Ext.D2 is produced and that document is not proved. The contention is that the husband is anemic. The evidence of CPW2 also is only hearsay. It is also to be stated that this R.P.(F.C.) NO. 112 OF 2006 -:3:- man was having a land phone connection in the house. The Court has seen both the husband and wife and in paragraph 9 has recorded that the husband appears to be a healthy man and wife a weak person. It has also come out in evidence that amount had been borrowed from the Bank and the Court below found that it must be for some purpose and therefore it cannot be stated that the husband is not having any income at all. So the Court had only ordered a maintenance of Rs.500/- to be paid to the wife by a healthy husband. I do not find any irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the Family Court which requires interference at the hands of the revisional Court. Therefore the revision fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-