IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 180 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.233/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ RAMESHAN, S/O.K.P. PERUMAL PILLAI AGED 41 YEARS, POOLAVALAPPIL HOUSE, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. MR.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. K.G. RAJI, W/O.REMASHAN, 37 YEARS KANNOTTIL, KOORANKUZHIPARAMBA MEDICAL COLLEGE PO. KOZHIKODE-8 2. AMBILI, D/O.K.G.RAJI, AGED 5 YEARS, REP. BY MOTHER K.G.RAJI R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, ALONG WITH RPFC NO. 323 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 180 of 2008 ORDER ON CRL.MA.NO.6128/2008 IN RP(FC) NO.180/2008 CLOSED 08/02/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).Nos.180 & 323 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010. O R D E R These two revision petitions are preferred by the wife and child as well as the husband against the order of maintenance ordered by the Family Court, Kozhikode. The husband, dissatisfied with the finding on entitlement of maintenance and also the quantum, had moved R.P.(FC) No.180/2008 and the wife had moved R.P.(FC)No.323/2008 for enhancement of the maintenance as well as from the date on which it has to be paid. There were five matrimonial disputes that had been tried jointly. 2. It has to be stated that we have reached a very unfortunate state wherein we find that when one starts a matrimonial dispute, it enlarges into indefinite numbers and ultimately it results in real matrimonial broke down which is really not the purport of the legislation. Indian society still considers marriage as a sacramental nature but the resultant effect now a days we find is that the said sanctity is lost. I stop it there. : 2 : R.P.(F.C).Nos.180 & 323 OF 2008 3. Since appeals are pending against other matrimonial disputes, I do not want to go elaborately into each and every aspect because it may affect one of the parties in those appeals. Therefore the bear minimum required for a finding under Section 125 is being considered by me. So far as entitlement of maintenance is concerned, it has to be stated that at least in the counter statement the husband has attributed unchastity on the wife that too with her mother's sister's son who will be only a brother. 4. I think it is one of the most cruel allegations that can be made against a lady unless it is true and at the stage of evidence, the said point has not been pressed into service. So without going into other details, I find that the said allegation itself is sufficient for a wife to live separately for claiming maintenance. 5. The next question is regarding quantum. The husband would submit that he is not having any substantial income , whereas the wife would contend that she is a contractor dealing with transport of medicines having an income of more than Rs.15,000/= per month. But the : 3 : R.P.(F.C).Nos.180 & 323 OF 2008 husband would contend that he is having an income of Rs.5,000/= per month. The wife is in custody of one child and the husband is in custody of another child. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the husband that the wife after the passing of the order is running an independent shop which is disputed. 6. If there is any change of circumstances, there are provisions which enable the party to move for varying the order. So far as enhancement of maintenance is concerned, she has also to live and the quantum of maintenance is ordered as Rs.1,250/= to the wife and Rs.750/- to the child. If situation improves and better income is derived, under change of circumstances it may be a ground depending upon necessity of the wife and child to move for variance of the order. Therefore I do not propose to enhance the amount as well. 7. Lastly taking effect of the order. The wife has also attributed allegations against the husband and the family court had applied its mind and held that it is only going to grant maintenance from the date of order. The child is not : 4 : R.P.(F.C).Nos.180 & 323 OF 2008 responsible for any of these things and therefore without going into the correctness of those allegations which are the subject matter of appeals, I think that the order of maintenance can take effect with respect to the wife from the date of order and with respect to the child from the date of petition. 8. Therefore both the revision petitions are disposed of with the only modification that the date of payment of maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.750/= per month will take effect from the date of petition. So far as the wife is concerned, it will take effect from the date of order. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : R.P.(F.C).Nos.180 & 323 OF 2008