IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 210 of 2007() -------------------------------- MC. NO.364/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S) / PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------- 1. KHADEEJA C.H., AGED 33 YEARS, W/O ABDUL MAJEED, D/O C.H.ABOOBAKER, JAMEELA MANZIL, KOTEKAR POST, ULLAL, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. 2. FATHIMATH MUSINA, AGED 8 YEARS, D/O C.H.KHADEEJA AND B.K.ABDUL MAJEED, (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND KHADEEJA C.H., JAMEELA MANZIL, KOTEKAR POST, ULLAL, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. 3. AYSHATH THAFSEENA, AGED 6 YEARS, D/O C.H.KHADEEJA AND B.K.ABDUL MAJEED, (MINOR)REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND KHADEEJA C.H., JAMEELA MANZIL, KOTEKAR POST, ULLAL, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. MR.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT & STATE -------------------------- 1. B.K.ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN MUSLIYAR, MUSLIYAR MANZIL, SANTHOSH NAGAR, ALAMPADY P.O., KASARGOD TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.BENNY VARGHESE THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No. 210 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.No.364/2005. The court below granted maintenance to the two minor children at the rate of Rs.750/= and declined maintenance to the wife. A perusal of the order would reveal that the family court has not accepted the evidence of PW1 in the case. PW1 is the wife. She would depose that in 2003 she had been driven out of the house and the husband thereafter not cared to look after her. Admittedly the husband and wife are living separately now. She is the mother of two children aged 6 and 4 years and is incapable of looking after them as she has no separate income. It is in this backdrop the reason for separate living has to be looked into. 2. A perusal of the order itself would reveal that the husband had allegations of unchastity indirectly on the wife which no lady may bear and therefore it could not be said : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No. 210 OF 2007 that the matrimonial home was visited only with the ordinary wear and tear of life. It has exceeded the same and that has resulted in separate living. Therefore I find that the wife is also entitled to get maintenance. 3. It is submitted that the husband is an electrician but cogent materials are not available to fix the income but considering the fact that he has to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/= each to the children it is desirable that the same amount is also ordered to pay to the wife so that unnecessary hardship can be averted to the husband as well. Therefore the order of maintenance passed by the family court is modified and the revision petitioner wife is also entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/= per month from the date of petition. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No. 210 OF 2007